MVP Hypocrisy

by fourstick on Oct 1, 2008 5:59 PM EDT Comment 28 comments

I'd love to get a debate and discussion going about postseason award winners for 2008, and this atrocious article on SI.com should get a little bit of discussion going.

Seriously, how can you give the AL MVP to K-Rod and then NOT give the NL MVP to Lidge? Saves is such a terrible stat to use to judge things, and Lidge had a much better season than K-Rod in every other category related to pitching. Not to mention that Lidge didn't blow a single save all year. I don't think any reliever deserves an MVP award, not even Eck when he had his ridiculous year in the early 90's, but if you're putting K-Rod on top in one league, it's foolish to say that a pitcher who was better in every facet of performance statistics shouldn't also get the award in the other league.

Second, Pujols finishes FIFTH in the voting in the National League behind two guys who played half a season, Lidge, and Ryan Howard -- who the author says got into contention by hitting .355 for September with 11 home runs. I guess the fact that Albert hit .357 for the season, hit .366/.456/.706 in the second half, and had his best RBI month of the season in September is easy to overlook. Considering that Sabathia and Ramirez probably wouldn't be contenders based on their total stats from the season, I hardly see how they're qualified as MVP candidates, especially when Manny's own manager has said that he felt Casey Blake was the biggest reason for the club's turnaround on the field and in the clubhouse.

Apparently being the Most Valuable Player disqualifies you from being the best pitcher, since K-Rod and Sabathia lose out in the Cy Young voting to two pitchers who aren't even on his top 10 in the MVP voting.

Huh?

Ignoring the fact that starters have much higher leverage in terms of valuability to a team, how can you hypocritically state that those two guys are two of the four most valuable players and then not have them win their leagues Cy Young awards? Sabathia loses because Santana "was in the NL all year" -- but that fact isn't enough to get Santana on the MVP list I guess....

I have no quibbles with his choices for ROY -- maybe the smaller sample of players didn't overwhelm him so much that he had to make a crazy pick here. Although I do find it interesting that he leaves off Edinson Volquez who was second in the NL in K's as a rookie and looked incredibly dominant in the first half before running out of gas, as rookie pitchers are prone to do.

Piniella is a good choice for manager of the year in the NL and Maddon is the runaway winner in the American League, although not giving mention to Terry Francona is a crime. Dealing with the Manny saga, Papi, Drew, Beckett, Schilling, and Lowell all missing time, and a suddenly hittable bullpen has to make this one of the better managing jobs in the big leagues.

Executives of the year are ok picks too, but I'd have to give the nod to Tony Reagins of the Angels for swindling the Braves for Tex AND holding onto most of his top prospects in the minors.

Outside of the fact that this guy should have his press credentials revoked for lack of intelligence, what does everyone else think about the postseason awards this year?

2 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

fire joe morgan did a nice job tearing this one to pieces

i agree on all counts… does anybody know if heyman actually gets to vote? i honestly have no idea. if he does get a vote and he filled it out like he does in the article, i might have to send him anthrax in the mail or something.
a lot has been said about the general lack of cohesion in mvp voting. oftentimes different sportswriters will use contradicting criteria as arguments for their votes. heyman, on the other hand, actually contradicts himself in his own voting, as you have adroitly pointed out. blah.
why oh why do i keep reading statements like “though ryan howard will probably win it this year with his september performance, my vote is…”
BLAH!

by mattybobo on Oct 1, 2008 6:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah,

an MVP should not be able to hit .251. So what if he hit 48 dingers? He plays in a friggin’ bandbox.

The NL Central Blog.com

by dunc4life on Oct 1, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe the phrase should be changed

instead of being, “chicks dig the longball”, it is now “chicks and MVP voters dig the longball”

The NL Central Blog.com

by dunc4life on Oct 1, 2008 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no vote for Heyman

From his article: “Here are my full theoretical ballots (since I left the newspaper game, they don’t trust me with a real ballot anymore)…” Thank god… This guy is a moron!

by E-Dizzle on Oct 1, 2008 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

weird enough

I thought once you were a member of the BBWA or whatever the acronym is that you were a member for life and as such could vote constantly. I only think this because I know it is a common complaint that a guy that covered baseball for one year early in his career still has HOF votes, maybe the MVP is different then the HOF in who gets to vote though.

by StLHugo on Oct 2, 2008 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i am relieved... somehow i missed that when i read his article originally

however, the notion that he once was trusted to vote… yuck.

by mattybobo on Oct 2, 2008 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, I think Heyman has become a shock jock

Seriously, I think that unless you play in the same league for the full season, there is no way you deserve to win a major award. I don’t care if you pitch perfect games/hit home runs in all of your AB’s, if you only contribute to your team for half a season, you DO NOT DESERVE THE MVP/CY YOUNG. For anyone who cares, here are my awards:

NL MVP:Albert, Berkman, Braun
AL MVP: Hamilton, Pedroia, Quentin
NL CY: Lincecum, Webb, Santana/Lidge
AL CY: Lee, Halladay, Burnett

The NL Central Blog.com

by dunc4life on Oct 1, 2008 6:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Off the beaten path.

Heyman is way off in this article. I could make a laundry list of points and counterpoints to go against just about everything he says in this article. One of his picks is more questionable than any of the others. Follow this “logic” if you will, as I expand on what fourstick mentioned in his post:

According to Wikipedia, a Most Valuable Player (MVP) award is an honor typically bestowed upon the best performing player or players on a specific team, in an entire league (duh!). The Cy Young Award is an honor given annually to the best pitcher in the Major Leagues (one for each league).

I’m sure I just rattled off something that you already knew. But, we needed to get those definitions out of the way so I can make my point.

Heyman taps K-Rod for MVP, the best performing PLAYER in the league.

According to my calculations, players include both hitters and pitchers.

Yet, Heyman picks Cliff Lee for the Cy Young, the best PITCHER in the league.

If you give the MVP to a pitcher, how then are you not obligated to give the Cy Young to that pitcher? It makes no sense to pick a pitcher for MVP, above all other PLAYERS and not give him the top award for PITCHERS.

That makes no sense to me. Nevermind the fact that he somehow ignores Ryan Howard’s 199 strikeouts. Also lost in the mix is the fact that Howard had to hit .352 in September just to inch above .250, or 1 hit per 4 official at-bats. He struck out 32% of the time and got a hit 25% of the time. His slugging and OPS are pretty great (.543 and .882) right? Sure they are, if you ignore Pujols! He struck out roughly 10% of the time this year and had a hit over 35% of the time. His SLG and OPS are vastly superior to Howard’s at .653 and 1.114, respectively. How can you ignore that difference? Even Ludwick’s SLG and OPS exceed Howard’s, and he might not even be in the top 5 in MVP voting.

This seems to be an example of the old adage “there is no such thing as bad press”. Heyman will be all over the blogosphere as we discuss how ridiculously off-base these picks are.

by Ghostrider520 on Oct 1, 2008 6:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

When it is all said and done

And Pujols career is over, I think the sparse number of MVP’s he will apparently have will be an obvious indictment of the sportswriting industry more than anything else. His career will match up either near or along side the very best. Whether it’s the former or the latter only depends on how many years he can keep this up. People 20-30 years from now will ask how could this guy possibly have only x number MVP’s? I think the answer everyone will have is that he established an out of this world baseline by his early 20’s and too many lazy sportswriters took him for granted.

Of course, Pujols could still win it this year but I won’t be putting any money on it in Vegas. Too many sportswriters look at whether the team makes the playoffs or not.

by Merry CRasmus on Oct 2, 2008 2:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. Here's a silver lining

Baseball-reference calculates a nice statistic which is share of the MVP vote. I couldn’t find an explanation to cut and paste, but I believe it is the player’s individual vote total divided by the maximum possible vote total (=all first place votes)). Winners will end up in the .8 to 1.0 range (1.0 if they are unanimous).

Albert has a total of 4.07 over 7 years and has averaged roughly a .6 share in his career. Even if the writers snub Albert this year in favor of Howard, etc., he should still place in the top 5, and get a decent share around .5. (I’d be incredulous if the writers treated him worse than this, but I’m not ruling out.) I do think that Albert is the deserving MVP by almost all standards.

Albert’s 4.07 total share is already 14th on the career list (see here):

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_cya.shtml

He’s on pace to climb into the top ten over the next couple of years.

The nice thing about the “shares” idea is that it picks out great players because it smooths out the idiosyncrasies of winning (or not winning) in a given year. I read a compelling (non-cards) blog the other day that Musial should have won 3 more MVPs (losing to Marty Marion, among others). He was a great player with a long career and his 3 wins is arguably too few; the mvp shares reflects his greatness and longevity and “unties” him from Roy Campanella who also won 3 awards.

I realize that MVP shares is never going to be a popular statistic with the average fan, but it’s nice for the statheads. By averaging across the (sometimes questionable) votes of the writers over enough years, something closer to a true value of a player emerges. (This is another variation on the wisdom of crowds….)

Here’s Albert’s stats by year (year, league, rank in MVP vote, share):
2001-NL-4-0.50
2002-NL-2-0.62
2003-NL-2-0.68
2004-NL-3-0.55
2005-NL-1-0.84
2006-NL-2-0.77
2007-NL-9-0.11

I agree completely that Albert’s otherworldly “baseline” hurts him: He is so consistently great, with few huge swings in performance up or down, that people come to expect his 35 home runs and .330 average. This is compounded by writers focusing on traditional stats (RBI) that are too context-dependent and neglecting the sabermetric stats (runs created, etc.—even OBP and SLG).

by ncgostl on Oct 2, 2008 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

1-27

Ranks 1-27 on that MVP list are either all HOFers or active players considered to be future HOFers or Pete Rose….I like this way of looking at the MVP award as a predictor for HOF. The one problem for Edmonds is that he isn’t even in the list. It is not a “must have” but it does show that he either was under appreciated by the media at large or just over hyped by Cards fans, I have a feeling it is a bit of both. 1-10 on the CYA side is similar, Clemens is the only “non active” non HOF in the top 10, yet to me he is about as “non active” as Bonds and Frank Thomas are.

by StLHugo on Oct 2, 2008 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Edmonds

The fact that the same audience that votes for the HOF is not voting for Edmonds for MVP is a bad sign.

I remember Brian Gunn making a case for Edmonds in 2004 on his Redbird nation site. His analysis showed that Edmonds’ offensive numbers compare favorably to other CFs of this era, such as Bernie Williams, with only Griffey being off the scale better. And then there’s the GG.

I think CF is one of those positions that gets caught “in between” a focus on offense and defense. Bill James made this argument about 3B—A 3B needs to be good at both, but a 3B’s offensive numbers are typically not as good as the best 1B, and defense is not considered as important as the best SS or 2B. CFs have offensive numbers that are not as good as corner OFs, and their defense is not as important as MIFs (and hard to evaluate).

Besides the depressing MVP share, Edmonds’ player comps are not very impressive, and he doesn’t do well on the 4 HOF predictors at baseball reference (0 points on the Black ink test because he’s never finished first in an offensive category). Tough case.

The MVP shares also show McGwire ranked #91, with a total share of 1.94. Writers saw him as a one-dimensional player. (He played on 6 playoff teams but his best years didn’t often line up with team success…..)

by ncgostl on Oct 2, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if we're going to ignore the rest of the year

and give out the MVP award to the guy who had the best september and whose team made the playoffs, the answer isn’t “manny ramirez” or “Ryan Howard” but rather “Andre Ethier”. Ethier had a 1.249 OPS with an OBP of .557 in September, which is slightly more valuable than howard’s slightly higher 1.272 OPS with paltry .422 OBP.

And hey, ethier is even more supportable as a MVP candidate when the whole year is considered, since he had a higher OPS than howard over the year (.885 to .882) and he’s a good outfielder instead of an awful 1B.

"All I am saying is give Freese a chance!" -- nmstar

by SleepyCA on Oct 1, 2008 7:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Forget Ethier...

The NL MVP is obviously Ryan Braun for his go ahead game winning, post season inducing homerun on Sunday in the last game of the season.

In the AL it is obviously Thome. His game winning homer was hit in a game later in the season (#163) then 28 of the 30 teams even played in (thus making that game infinately more valuable then the other 162)… Of course if Pierzynski hadn’t of held onto the ball during the play at the plate in 5th inning of that game the score would have been tied…. So A.J. Pierzynski and Thome co-AL MVP’s!!!

by E-Dizzle on Oct 1, 2008 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Howard v. Pujols

Some key numbers differentiating Pujols and Howard:

AP late and close: .314/.444/.600/1.044
RH late and close: .158/.306/.337/.643

AP innings 7-9: .352/.472/.697/1.169
RH innings 7-9: .143/.263/.316/.580

Howard seems to shut down at the end of games. I would guess that is due to being unable to hit LOOGY’s, but I can’t confirm that. Seems like the guy who is most valuable would be there when it mattered most. Howard also posted a line of .278/.376/.639/1.015 when the margin was greater than four runs, so he essentially did well when the fringy pitchers were in the game.

A frequent argument is that he gets lots more RBI opportunities and there is some truth in that. The three slots in front of him have OBPs of .356/.347/.369 with OPSes of .810/.788/.857 respectively. He has 351 PAs with men on base, 223 PAs with men in scoring position, 180 PAs with at least a runner on second. The three slots in front of Albert have OPSs of .322/.345/.371 with OPSes of .647/.733/.864. Albert has 322 PAs with men on base, 176 PAs with men in scoring position, and 136 PAs with at least a runner on second.

Part of this discrepancy is that Howard played in more games and had more total PAs by 59. Part of it is due to Howard getting walked/pitched around less. Even though the OPSes of the hitters behind each man in the lineup are pretty similar, I think pitchers just feel like they have a better chance of getting Howard out.

A significant part of the discrepancy is that Howard bats fourth while Pujols bats third. Just look at the OBP/OPS of the hitters in front of Howard. He isn’t depending on Cesar Izturis getting on base or into scoring position, he is depending on Chase Utley. You can see a huge difference in the first inning. In spite of having 37 less PAs than Albert in the first inning he has twice as many HRs (10) and nearly twice as many RBIs (39 v. 22) in the first. He also posts his best slash lines of any inning in the first at .348/.425/.753/1.177. By contrast, Pujols slash lines are good in the first inning, but he has by far his worst HR ratio as he only homers once every 28.6 PAs in the first compared to once every 17.3 overall. Howard homers every 10.6 PAs in the first compared to 14.6 overall.

So, I don’t know whether Pujols batting fourth would necessarily mean the Cardinals would win more games (although I suspect it would), I think it is very likely it would substantially help his run production.

Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...

by giveml on Oct 1, 2008 7:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget defense

AP = Gold Glover
Howard = Not so much

I rather enjoyed reading this article. The reference to Howard playing “Edward Scissorhands defense” paints a pretty funny picture in my mind.

by tangledbrett on Oct 1, 2008 8:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

interesting article...

i find it amusing to hear what players think when asked about who should be the mvp, and other related topics. he cites respected players on the rockies giving reasons for delgado, howard, etc. without wanting to bash anybody for their opinion, i do think this demonstrates that players don’t necessarily have to have a mind for analysis to be good players. i’m not saying i’m bill james or anything, but i can easily demonstrate why those two should not win the mvp. on the other hand, they can of course play baseball about a million times better than i ever could. maybe this is why bannister is such a rarity.

by mattybobo on Oct 2, 2008 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i also like this line in the denver post article, about the mets

“Team has blown more leads than Inspector Clouseau.”

by mattybobo on Oct 2, 2008 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hasn't Jose Canseco proved handily enough how smart you need to be to play baseball?

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Oct 2, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, even Bert Blyleven (one of the best pitchers ever who has been snubbed from the HOF because of his W/L record) was quoted as saying the twins should keep playing Livan Hernandez because, hey, he got ten wins this season.

Space.

It's a problem we face.

So we never go anywhere.

We just stay in one place.

by hazel on Oct 2, 2008 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or Manny Ramirez for that matter

If you haven’t read Bill Simmons OTL article on the Manny trade you should take 20-30 minutes to read through it. It’s such a great dissection of the fallout between player and team, constructed by a total outsider who’s a first-rate douchebag (and we all know who I’m talking about here)

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Oct 3, 2008 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Volquez...and yeah

Volquez isn’t technically a rookie if I’m not mistaken. I like to think that’s why he didn’t appear, but probably because John Heyman has no idea who Edison Volkess is.* The guy has give or take 70 career innings, all for the Rangers, and I think you have to have less than 50. Right?

*_And yes, that is what he thinks his name is, if he has indeed heard of him, which I doubt._

And yeah, Heyman is a knucklehead. He’s one of FJM’s favorite targets. I don’t see an argument for a pitcher winning an MVP (unless there is no viable position player candidate), let alone a reliever, who only really participates in about 50-75 innings/~50-60 games. I think that about a dozen position players in the AL have a better case than K-Rod: A-Rod (yes, that A-Rod), Quentin, Sizemore, Bradley, Kinsler, Hamilton, Pedroia, Youkilis, Dye, Longoria, Carlos Pena, and hell even Aubrey Huff, Nick Markaikis, and Miguel Cabrera are better picks…

I wonder about this: Why don’t more voters use the Bill Simmons formula? Simmons has his issues, but he always asks this…would you trade Billy Bob for JimBo, all things being equal? Take the NL…Who would you trade straight up for Albert Pujols? There isn’t anyone in baseball right now for whom I would deal Pujols straight up…Therefore, he’s the MVP. Makes sense to me! Sure, it’s generally more complex…but by how much?

"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.

by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 2, 2008 12:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I've been a long time advocate of the Simmons formula

but even that lends itself to being really subjective at times. In 2003, Cubs fans wouldn’t have traded Mark Prior for anybody (they proved it by not dealing him for Miggy Tejada, straight up) and he was far from the most valuable player on their team. Writers probably tend to favor the players they cover the most if the line between players is so close.

The only guy I would think about trading for Pujols straight up would be Hanley Ramirez because of his youth, the fact that he plays a premium defensive position, and has the arm to make the transition to third base later in his career if need be. I think Pujols is the far more talented hitter, but I think that 4 more years of Hanley would offset that.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Oct 3, 2008 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I will be enraged if Pujols doesn't get MVP

go rays

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Oct 2, 2008 1:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i will raise all kinds of hell too

but i’m preparing myself for the worst. in this instantcradification-microwave-whathaveyoudoneformelatley-wwlinfectedworld, true greatness is all to often overlooked in favor of players with more style than substance in their overall numbers.

Cardinal fans, get ready. because once again i think the greatest player of our time is about to be overlooked once again.

I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!

by gdm426 on Oct 2, 2008 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

In 50 years,

if you laid all the numbers on the table with your grandchildren, isn’t it going to be painful to have to explain why Ryan Howard has 2 MVP’s while the best right handed hitter of his generation has only one.

"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller

by fourstick on Oct 3, 2008 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I won't be

Make him super, super underappreciated—the lower visibility he is, the fewer MVPs he has, the easier he is to resign in 2012

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Oct 5, 2008 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For a little humor and more of the same, check out "Dickie V's MLB Awards" on espn

he says about howard, and I quote, “Don’t look at his batting average, check out his home runs and RBI…” He does give the disclaimer that he’s not a baseball expert, I guess.

by soccerfreak on Oct 2, 2008 7:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs