Who really should have won the 2010 MVP, and the 4 before that

by cardinalswsbound on Aug 6, 2011 3:33 PM EDT

The baseball season is into August now, which means that it's time for announcers and writers to begin discussing the awards races. Along with that, they will also begin to argue about exactly who is deserving of winning the MVP or Cy Young, i.e. whether it's right for them to be awarded to a great player on a bad or non-playoff team. By its literal definition, the MVP should be awarded to the player who accumulated the most value in the regular season, regardless of whether or not their team was a contender. However, many of the 'old school' voters don't care how good a player's season is, if he was on a losing team they refuse to award him the MVP. I personally feel that this is stupid, and that the MVP should be awarded to the player who accumulated the most value throughout the season, team record be damned. Previously, in order to determine this, it was required to look at a variety of stats covering all that the player does on the field. Now, however, WAR is able to group it all together to determine the value the player was worth in the season, so MVP should, in theory, go to the player who had the highest WAR.

Looking back, that isn't really always the case, as any number of biases can derail that ideal, whether it's the winning team bias, the positional bias, or the East Coast bias (I'm not saying they intentionally do it, but most of the sportswriters are located in the east, so they see players from the eastern divisions play a lot more and are more easily convinced if they should or shouldn't be MVP). Therefore, I decided to go back and look at the last 5 winners of the MVP and determine whether or not they really were the Most Valuable Player in that season.

2006: AL Winner: Justin Morneau, 1B, Minnesota Twins 4.0 WAR

NL Winner: Ryan Howard, 1B, Philadelphia Phillies 6.2 WAR

2006 had two first-time 1B win the award, and in both cases there were numerous better candidates. Morneau winning, however, was much more atrocious, as that year he ranked only 22nd in the AL in WAR, and second on his team, behind Joe Mauer (who I'll get to later). That year the Twins won the division on the last day, the only time they held sole possession of first place all season long. I'm not entirely sure why he won the MVP, as in most of the stats that were held in value back then he didn't rank that favorably, 12th in HR, 19th in R, and 7th in AVG and SLG. The only statistic he had MVP-like numbers in was RBI, in which he finished second to David Ortiz, 137-130. I believe the main culprit was people getting caught up in the Twins' story as a small-market team beating the odds and continuing to have success.

In the NL, Ryan Howard rated 6th in WAR, but, as was the case above, only second on his team behind Chase Utley. Surprisingly, the Phillies didn't make the playoffs this year, and yet Howard was still awarded it even though there was a more-valuable, 97-win CF who was also a good candidate, in Carlos Beltran. Howard did, however, lead in both HR and RBI, and finished 8th in AVG, so that goes a long way to explaining it, along with the fact that he was 4th in OBP and 2nd in SLG.

**Fun Fact: Rafael Furcal and Matt Holliday finished tied in WAR this year, at 3.9**

Rightful MVPs: AL: Grady Sizemore, 8.0 WAR

NL: Albert Pujols, 8.5 WAR

2007: AL Winner: Alex Rodriguez, 3B, New York Yankees 9.8 WAR

NL Winner: Jimmy Rollins, SS, Philadelphia Phillies 6.9 WAR

2007 saw a second straight Phillie win the MVP, in spite of being only second-most valuable to Chase Utley, who seems to always be the proverbial bridesmaid and never the bride. While in the AL they actually made the correct choice, if for the wrong reasons, as Rodriguez led the AL in WAR, HR, R, RBI, and SLG, along with playing on a playoff team. Rollins, however, finished just 7th in WAR, but finished with a 30-40 (HR-SB) which I'm sure wooed people with his aggressive speed being supported by power, at a premium position at SS. Also, the Phillies won the East, so that helped him out.

Rightful MVPs: AL: Alex Rodriguez, 9.8 WAR

NL: David Wright, 8.9 WAR

2008: AL Winner: Dustin Pedroia, 2B, Boston Red Sox 6.8 WAR

NL Winner: Albert Pujols, 1B, St. Louis Cardinals 9.1 WAR

Seriously, somebody please give Chase Utley an MVP already, as 2008 marked his 3rd consecutive top 3 finish in WAR, though he did finish short of the leader, Pujols, who finished 4th in HR and RBI, 2nd in AVG and OBP, and 1st in SLG Also, it really, really sucks that Grady Sizemore had to get hurt before anyone could truly appreciate his value, as he led the AL in WAR a second time in 2008 but was robbed once again. Though, at least it was by a somewhat deserving candidate, as Pedroia finished second to him and played for the wildcard-winning and World Series-defending Red Sox, which I feel has to be the greatest contributing factor, as none of his popular numbers were very good, except for leading in R and 2nd in AVG to Mauer.

Rightful MVPs: AL: Grady Sizemore, 6.8 WAR

NL: Albert Pujols, 9.1 WAR

2009: AL Winner: Joe Mauer, C, Minnesota Twins, 7.9 WAR

NL Winner: Albert Pujols, 8.9 WAR

Okay, I am officially, on the record, starting a Give Chase Utley an MVP Bandwagon, as in 2009 he again finished 2nd in WAR, to the incomparable Pujols, who put up his usual array of great numbers, including HR, R, OBP, and SLG titles, along with 3rd place finishes in RBI and AVG. On the AL side, however, Mauer was finally able to gain his moment in the sun, in spite of a second-place finish that year in WAR, to Ben Zobrist. Mauer had a ton of good publicity going into 2009 for signing a long-term deal with the Twins, so that didn't hurt, but his near-30 HR 100 RBI campaign in support of his batting title, all from a non-offensive position at C, was what put him over the top. Then, having the Twins win the Central on a one-game playoff was just icing on the cake. Zobrist, whose Rays were only able to muster a 3rd-place finish in the stacked East, never had a chance.

Rightful MVPs: AL: Ben Zobrist, 8.6 WAR

NL: Albert Pujols, 8.9 WAR

2010: AL Winner: Josh Hamilton, CF, Texas Rangers 8.7 WAR

NL Winner: Joey Votto, 1B, Cincinnati Reds 7.3 WAR

In the AL, Josh Hamilton was, if looked at by someone like us who knows what wOBA and RC+ is, was far and away the best candidate for it. However, the voters easily could have and probably would have in years past, chosen Miguel Cabrera, who finished ahead of Hamilton in HR, R, RBI, and OBP, while Hamilton beat Cabrera out in just AVG and SLG, though I'm sure the fact that Hamilton's team, the Rangers, winning their division didn't hurt. The NL is a bit trickier, as obviously I'm biased towards Pujols, who did win the WAR title that year, by .2 over Votto, but whose team, my team, the Cardinals, didn't beat Votto's team, my arch nemesis, the Reds in the Central. Pujols does beat Votto in nearly every popular category, AVG is the only place Votto nips him there. As for advanced stats, Votto beats Pujols in wOBA and RC+. The only difference between the two is created by Pujols' baserunning, as he rates at 1.4 while Votto's at -1.4. If the MVP were as I dreamed, then Pujols would have won, but it's not that way, and some believe the team finish should matter, even though there was little Pujols could have done to make his pitchers pitch better.

Rightful Winners: AL: Josh Hamilton, 8.7 WAR

NL: Albert Pujols, 7.5 WAR

2011: Predicted AL Winner: Adrian Gonzalez, 1B, Boston Red Sox, 5.2 WAR

Predicted NL Winner: Matt Kemp? Matt Holliday? 5.3 WAR Ryan Braun? 5.0 WAR

What does this mean for this year? Well, it means that, unless something changes, even though Adrian Gonzalez is third on his team in WAR, behind Jacoby Ellsbury and Pedroia and 5th in the AL in WAR, he'll likely win the MVP going away, while Jose Bautista is left to hope that the Blue Jays' young core can start producing wins while he can still play at an MVP level. On the NL side, it is by far more open, as the highest-ranked candidate who plays for a winning team, Shane Victorino, in at 2nd behind Jose Reyes, isn't really a type of player to be awarded the MVP, just ask Grady Sizemore. Therefore, I like Matt Kemp, who has been given a ton of publicity for both his breakout season and his misfortune of playing for the Dodgers, to somehow pull the MVP out in the NL, although I wouldn't count out Jose Reyes, who does lead the NL in WAR right now, unless the Mets' losing streak continues to epic proportions.

Rightful Winners (If the season ended today): AL: Jose Bautista, 7.0 WAR

NL: Jose Reyes, 5.5 WAR

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Just wanna say, sorry for the length, really got up there unexpectedly

Someday when I'm old and have grandchildren, I'll sit them down and say, "I got to see Ryan Theriot play SS." And they'll reply, "Oh, I'm so sorry you had to experience that."

Currently residing on the Free Tyler Greene bandwagon

by cardinalswsbound on Aug 6, 2011 3:34 PM EDT reply actions

Also, the spacing looked fine in the preview I viewed, I'm not sure what happened

Someday when I'm old and have grandchildren, I'll sit them down and say, "I got to see Ryan Theriot play SS." And they'll reply, "Oh, I'm so sorry you had to experience that."

Currently residing on the Free Tyler Greene bandwagon

by cardinalswsbound on Aug 6, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

As usual,

I have a different slant. Go figure.

However, many of the ‘old school’ voters don’t care how good a player’s season is, if he was on a losing team they refuse to award him the MVP.

I’m an old schooler and I don’t fit this mold…but I don’t have a vote.
There was a time when the MVP was the player that was most valuable to his team. It’s sort of a novel idea these days but I kind of liked it. The MVP could actually be on a losing team. It was a totally different way at looking at what MVP means. Not right or wrong, just different.
At that time, water and dirt were a fairly new discovery….I’m pretty sure. There was no WAR except in some other country far far away and DH probably stood for “doesn’t hit”.
But today there’s the League MVP and each team has it’s own MVP. I guess that’s kind of novel in it’s own right but I prefer the old way. A guy could have a monster season…playing for the last place Cubs…and still have a shot at it with no regard to his teams standings. After all, it’s not his fault what the rest of the team does.
If Lance Berkman keeps his current pace, and the Cards finish 3rd, he might get an honorable mention. His chances would be better back when dirt was new.
You know….Descalso might even have an outside chance. How cool would that be?

disclaimer:
it’s 4:00 am and I’m up because of insomnia. The mind is in a strange mood.
I’d vote for Berkman and Descalso as Co-MVP.
and also, Berkman for Comeback Player of the Year.

Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983

by Dave Pendleton on Aug 7, 2011 5:16 AM EDT reply actions

I actually think I agree with you, but I may not have made it clear in my writing

I believe that standings shouldn’t matter with the MVP, and maybe I was wrong in saying that was the old schoolers fault, it very well may be a recent development and I just didn’t know. I figured that it might be them who started it, because they’re the main source in misinformation in baseball.

Someday when I'm old and have grandchildren, I'll sit them down and say, "I got to see Ryan Theriot play SS." And they'll reply, "Oh, I'm so sorry you had to experience that."

Currently residing on the Free Tyler Greene bandwagon

by cardinalswsbound on Aug 7, 2011 8:39 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Why Descalso?

He barely cracks the Top 10 most valuable Cardinals.

President of the Tyler Greene fan club - Wiki - PUT TYLER ON THE GREENE
Tyler Greene Fanclub - Free admission, just promote playing time for TGreene
TWITTER

by stlcardsfan4 on Aug 7, 2011 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions

depends on how you look at it.

Back when Oquendo was playing I felt the same way about him. In Descalso’s case, with all the injuries the Cardinals have had to deal with, it was Dirty Dan that filled in a lot of the gaps, and did it well. He’s been very steady, and at times, pretty clutch. You can plug him and not worry about it. I’d call that a pretty valuable commodity to have, a pretty important cog in the bigger wheel. He’s not Albert, Matt, or Lance, but the little guys are as important as the big guys. He’s probably the best of the little guys overall. That’s how I see it anyway.

Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983

by Dave Pendleton on Aug 7, 2011 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions

This makes no sense.

He’s not Albert, Matt, or Lance, but the little guys are as important as the big guys.

Uh no they aren’t. The “big guys” are way more important that’s why we call them “the big guys.” Guys like Dan Descalso, while valuable, are not all that rare. What makes him valuable isn’t his play, which is borderline average, but the fact that he’s a rookie and really cheap.

But on a full spectrum, looking at what guys did the most to help our team in a given year, no that statement makes no sense. Albert, Lance, Holliday, Jay, Molina, Carpenter, and Garcia are all more valuable.

And the comparison to Oquendo isn’t apt. Descalso plays 2B, SS, and 3B well which isn’t as rare as say Oquendo playing all nine positions. (It’s weird that you think Oquendo was so valuable since he was a pretty crappy hitter.)

President of the Tyler Greene fan club - Wiki - PUT TYLER ON THE GREENE
Tyler Greene Fanclub - Free admission, just promote playing time for TGreene
TWITTER

by stlcardsfan4 on Aug 7, 2011 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions

I mean Oquendo is like the ideal utility player

But at the end of the day, he’s still a utility player (averaged 311 plate appearances a year, only above 500 twice)

President of the Tyler Greene fan club - Wiki - PUT TYLER ON THE GREENE
Tyler Greene Fanclub - Free admission, just promote playing time for TGreene
TWITTER

by stlcardsfan4 on Aug 7, 2011 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions

like I said, it depends on how you look at it.

I’m simply looking at it a different way. So it just doesn’t make sense to you.

Uh no they aren’t. The "big guys" are way more important that’s why we call them "the big guys."

I think they call them the big guys because they’re power hitters.
Before the Larussa era here, The Cardinals typically had one, maybe 2 big hitters..usually one. Was he more valuable than everybody else? It depends on how you look at it.

Albert, Lance, Holliday, Jay, Molina, Carpenter, and Garcia are all more valuable.

You can’t win ballgames with just 7 guys.

I get the feeling that a lot of people think Boog was a pretty important piece of the pie. He only plays one position (truly) and doesn’t hit a ton. But if you have a lot of big gears in a machine, that machine won’t function properly if you remove one small screw. That’s how I’m looking at it. IMO, value isn’t always reflected by who has the gaudiest numbers. That’s a tough sell here, I know.

It’s weird that you think Oquendo was so valuable since he was a pretty crappy hitter.

I can see how you would think it’s weird, but I bet his manager and team mates would all say he had tremendous value. They were looking at a bigger picture that involved more than plate appearances and batting average, etc. He wasn’t called the “secret weapon” for nothing. He had great value despite being a “crappy” hitter who had slow wheels.
My comparison of Descalso to Oquendo isn’t a head to head comparison. It’s a comparison as to their value to their respective team. They are valuable players (IMO) for similar reasons.
Mike Shannon once said (probably more than once) that Bob Uecker was a really valuable member of the team and they may not have won the pennant without him. But it wasn’t because of gaudy numbers, to be sure. I understood him perfectly. That may not make sense to everybody, but it made sense to me. It’s all in which way you determine value. You can go strictly by the numbers or you can look beyond the numbers, again, IMO.
Almost always, there’s more than one way to look at things. Between you and me, we’ve come up with at least two. But neither is right and neither is wrong, just different philosophies. I put a high value on an exceptional utility player like Oquendo, and although Descalso isn’t quite Oquendo, even though he has better speed, I put a high value on him for the same reason.
Also, Oquendo didn’t play all nine positions in his rookie season, it took him quite awhile to do that and some of that was pure novelty. Who’s to say Descalso couldn’t do it too, if his manager was so inclined to use him that way.
When MVPs are chosen, either now or in earlier days, I bet there are/were several different philosophies being kicked around, everybody having their own. I just wonder if each person involved told the others that their philosophy makes no sense. I’d like to be a fly on the wall to find out how heated it gets.

another disclaimer:
this isn’t intended to be sarcastic, insulting or argumentative. I’ve had enough of that when trying to present or explain a differing view. I try to be diplomatic and not use the “Jane, you ignorant slut” approach. Hopefully I didn’t come across that way.

Gone fishing till Wednesday

Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983

by Dave Pendleton on Aug 8, 2011 1:44 AM EDT up reply actions

Okay you can have made entirely of little guys like Descalso, and I'll have a team made entirely of guys like Albert and Matt, and we can see who would win more games.

Someday when I'm old and have grandchildren, I'll sit them down and say, "I got to see Ryan Theriot play SS." And they'll reply, "Oh, I'm so sorry you had to experience that."

Currently residing on the Free Tyler Greene bandwagon

by cardinalswsbound on Aug 8, 2011 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions

can have a team made entirely

Someday when I'm old and have grandchildren, I'll sit them down and say, "I got to see Ryan Theriot play SS." And they'll reply, "Oh, I'm so sorry you had to experience that."

Currently residing on the Free Tyler Greene bandwagon

by cardinalswsbound on Aug 8, 2011 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions

C'mon now,

Did I say I wanted a team like that? Of course not.
I don’t think your getting my point at all. I’m not asking you to agree, just telling you where I’m coming from. I didn’t even come close to anything like that.
I’m talking about THIS team and Descalso’s relative value to it, and the value of the “little guys” on all teams. I thought it was pretty clear, not that you have to agree.
To suggest that I field a team of Descalso’s and you field a team of Alberts and Matts and let’s see who wins is totally missing it. I don’t understand how you got that out of what I said.

Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983

by Dave Pendleton on Aug 9, 2011 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Hmmm okay I see what you mean now, I still disagree, but I get where you're coming from, my bad

Someday when I'm old and have grandchildren, I'll sit them down and say, "I got to see Ryan Theriot play SS." And they'll reply, "Oh, I'm so sorry you had to experience that."

Currently residing on the Free Tyler Greene bandwagon

by cardinalswsbound on Aug 9, 2011 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions

now we're talking.

A good old fashioned disagreement.
Really, I’m not advocating Descalso for MVP and i’m being a bit facetious.
I’m pretty use to looking at things from different angles, different points of views, experimenting with different ways of doing things and trying to see as big a picture and all the possibilities as I can. I’m a former computer programmer, so it’s become a way of life for me….second nature, if you will.
And sometimes, I just like to swim upstream, against the tide, just to keep from always thinking inside the box.
One upon a time, relief pitchers weren’t really considered as candidates for the Hall Of Fame, especially closers. But eventually, the thinking changed. Somebody successfully started making a case that they were specialists at what they do and had big impacts, despite their occasional appearances and low number of innings, compared to regular players. They hadn’t been getting the recognition and appreciation they deserved. But they do now.
I’m kind of making the same sort of statement about utility players….good ones. Oquendo was one of the best ever in that role. I think it’s just as unfair to disregard utility players if they are elite among other utility players as it is to disregard relief pitchers. They serve an important role and should be able to achieve status if they’re very good at it.

Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983

by Dave Pendleton on Aug 10, 2011 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Just trying to take this comment to its natural conclusion, but do you think utility players should be in the Hall of Fame then?

Someday when I'm old and have grandchildren, I'll sit them down and say, "I got to see Ryan Theriot play SS." And they'll reply, "Oh, I'm so sorry you had to experience that."

Currently residing on the Free Tyler Greene bandwagon

by cardinalswsbound on Aug 10, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions

yes.

I’ve now seen enough utility players to realize when a particularly good one comes around, he can help any team get through injuries and allow the manager to manipulate his team during the game without losing much defense. I admire Whitey Herzog (no secret) and Jose Oquendo quite a bit. Jose was very versatile and solid defensively just about anywhere. He was a light hitting, slow running, solid defensive plug in. Herzog had the ability to use him brilliantly. He was a master manipulator.
So if a good manager has a good utility player he has a nice tool in his toolbox.
I’ve tried to make a case before, and so have others, that there should be room in the Hall of fame for players of Jose Oqueno’s trade…that of the utility player. Their role isn’t to hit as much as it is to field and allow the manager some wiggle room.
I consider the utility player to almost be a position, like 1st base or 2nd base, etc It requires it’s own unique skills just like they do.
A good utility player should be noted, just like a good 3rd baseman. If he excels at his craft there should be HOF consideration. IMO
So far I’ve obviously been impressed with Daniel Descalo. He hasn’t played all 9 positions yet and I don’t suppose he ever will, but from what I’ve seen so far, I’d say he has the potential to be a really good utility guy. He’s been good at 2nd, better at ss and really good at 3rd. He’s had his share of clutch hit and run’s better than Oquendo did.
That’s my take on it.

Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983

by Dave Pendleton on Aug 10, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions

I guess I could see that, they would obviously have to make it separate from the rest of it though.

But the main issue I see coming up is how to differentiate a Hall of Fame utility player versus a very good one, as with pitchers and hitters there are several different stats to look at in order to determine whether they are HOF worthy or not, while with utility men the main asset they have is their defense at different positions, so what would their UZR/150 have to be at each position? If somebody had say a 12 UZR/150 at 2B but only 2 or 3 at the other positions he played is he a HOFer, or would it be required to have at least 5 at each position?

Someday when I'm old and have grandchildren, I'll sit them down and say, "I got to see Ryan Theriot play SS." And they'll reply, "Oh, I'm so sorry you had to experience that."

Currently residing on the Free Tyler Greene bandwagon

by cardinalswsbound on Aug 13, 2011 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Sorry, I've been gone awhile.

I’m sure the stats people can grow a formula.
maybe an above average fielding % at 3 or more positions, some minimum # of innings at each position and a decent OBP. I’d start there, or something like that.

Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983

by Dave Pendleton on Aug 16, 2011 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, let's definitely not go by Fielding %

Though I do like the overall direction of that, so hopefully if they do at some point start putting utility players in the HOF they use something like this. I’m not entirely opposed to having them in the hall, but there would definitely need to be like a special room for them or something like that, so that they’re not being compared to the actual all-time greats like Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, etc.

FYI, I have never been to the Hall, so keep that in mind.

Someday when I'm old and have grandchildren, I'll sit them down and say, "I got to see Ryan Theriot play SS." And they'll reply, "Oh, I'm so sorry you had to experience that."

Currently residing on the Free Tyler Greene bandwagon

by cardinalswsbound on Aug 18, 2011 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Been there once.

it was awesome.
There may not be many folks around that have the same personal view of the HOF as me.
Personally, I’d be just a bit more flexible on the qualifications. I wouldn’t always judge players because of their giant offensive numbers. Offense is only part of the game but it gets the most glory.
Once in a blue moon I’d actually admit someone because of their contribution to the game of baseball as a whole. It’s too early in the morning yet for me to supply a name as an example but I’ve thought of a few over the years. maybe later.
As far as a special wing, I don’t believe in them in general…not for players. Maybe for broadcasters or women’s leagues, etc. But in general, if you’re a player and you’re admitted, you shouldn’t have to sit at the kiddie table. If you’re in, your all the way in. It’s called the Hall of Fame and I think fame can come in a lot of ways.
That’s just my own feelings.

Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983

by Dave Pendleton on Aug 21, 2011 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions