Cy Young and MVP Choices

[bigdik]

Ortiz is a left handed dead pull hitter. Fenway does him very few favours, but this would open a debate that has been around since the days of Williams and Dimaggio! I am definitely not touting Ortiz as MVP, just trying to illustrate his value to Ramirez. Having said that, the award is " Most Valuable Player". I know the asshats in BBWA can't figure that out , BUT, amazing season or not how "Valuable" is Ichiro when the M's are 51 - 87?. Player of the year? Maybe. MVP? No Farking Way!
How about another stat? Runs produced ( Runs + RBI - HR ).
Manny - 168
Ortiz - 166
Damon -161
Ichiro - 135
I threw Damon in there to refute the " leadoff men don't get the RBI chances of 3 & 4 hitters" I thought might be coming.
Ichiro may be the MVP of a terrible M's team, but AL MVP? Gimme a break!

 

[RemyMartin]

Ichiro may be the MVP of a terrible M's team, but AL MVP? Gimme a break!

Well said, he might be the best hitter in the AL. But not MVP

 

[Ranger68]

I posted the numbers for Ortiz - both years, he's hit better in Fenway - in 2003 TONS better. Did you even look at the stats? Why do you think Fenway does him "very few favours"?? What is your evidence for this statement? (BTW - any monkey could look at that park and tell me why it favours a left-handed pull-hitting homerun hitter.)

There really isn't any "debate that has been around since the days of Williams and Dimaggio". That Fenway inflates hitting stats is a fact. Move on.

Why is it Ichiro's problem that the rest of the team sucks? Same with Bonds? How much do you expect one player to help a team? You argument makes no sense - you think that if the best player in baseball is playing for a team, that team would NECESSARILY have to be better than 51-87. I don't think you understand the small impact one player can have on a team (unless that player is Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds, perhaps ).

What's your distinction between "player of the year" and "MVP"? Because, last time I checked, the MVP award WAS for the "player of the year".

Ack - Runs Produced - it's been a while since I've seen that one - for good reason - not much value in that number - far too simplistic to determine overall offensive contribution. Anyway, let's correct for park factor - -10% for Fenway, +10% for Safeco (being *conservative*):
Manny - 151
Ortiz - 149
Damon - 145
Ichiro - 149
Hmmm - not so bad now, is it? ..... Yeah, wow, what an edge Ramirez has as a slugger! LOL Runs and RBI are obviously mostly team-driven. However, you've chosen the three most important stats to those BBWAA asshats. Congratulations.

If Ichiro sets a new record for hits, he deserves the MVP hands down.

What's there to give you a break about?

I'll say what *I* said again - Ramirez, at this point, would be a TERRIBLE choice as MVP.

 

[Ranger68]

If you want to give the MVP to the best player from a team that wins its division or the wildcard, just say so.

But you're not choosing always the best player in doing so. Fortunately, despite the other foibles of the BBWAA voters, they rarely do this.

 

[the_big_E]

I am not prepared to add anything more to this argument, but Manny as a "terrible" choice for MVP? I have difficulty accepting that statement.

During the World Series, all of this will be settled...until then, let the arguing continue til October!

 

[RemyMartin]

Ichiro for MVP? most of the Japanese think so.

 

[bigdik]

A monkey? Only a monkey! Fenway is 380 to the alley in right, only short in the corner. There's your few favours.
The debate was how much the respective " short porches " would have favoured them had they swapped teams!
MVP stands for Most Valuable Player, not at all the same as player of the year. A valid MVP argument could be made for Vlad Guerrero, but he has not been the best player in the AL! Again, how valuable is any player on a team that will losae 100 games? without him they'da lost 110?
RP is generally considered the most valid measurement of offense. OBP is bullshit without someone driving in the runs. Last I checked theygavetheW to the team that scored the most runs, right? No, sorry you lose, the other guys had a higher OBP so they win!
Ichiro wouldbe a worse choice than Hawk Dawson was!

 

[kwong_1978]

Ichiro wouldbe a worse choice than Hawk Dawson was!

If Ichiro breaks a record that stood for about 90 years, he may well be chosen the MVP.

 

[bigdik]

Whether he breaks the record or not he may well be chosen. It will be a travesty! ARod won the last two on crappy Rangers teams, a whole different view of " Valuable ". Guess the writers thought they had to vote for the richest guy. Ichiro has had a great year, should probably win the Aaron Award, but he ain't MVP!

 

[the_big_E]

PS

Oliver Perez, if he is eligible HAS to be the rookie of the year.

Granted he's only 10-8 but...212 K's in 170.2 IP, highest K/IP ratio in the MAJORS. 3.01 ERA

Simply put, he's amazing.

 

[Ranger68]

A monkey? Only a monkey! Fenway is 380 to the alley in right, only short in the corner. There's your few favours.
The debate was how much the respective " short porches " would have favoured them had they swapped teams!
MVP stands for Most Valuable Player, not at all the same as player of the year. A valid MVP argument could be made for Vlad Guerrero, but he has not been the best player in the AL! Again, how valuable is any player on a team that will losae 100 games? without him they'da lost 110?
RP is generally considered the most valid measurement of offense. OBP is bullshit without someone driving in the runs. Last I checked theygavetheW to the team that scored the most runs, right? No, sorry you lose, the other guys had a higher OBP so they win!
Ichiro wouldbe a worse choice than
Hawk Dawson was!

Yep, a monkey. It's 302 down the line in right - but,you'd maintain, this doesn't help a left-handed pull-hitting homerun hitter. LOL Not to mention that it has the SMALLEST foul territory in the AL. Nope, CLEARLY Fenway doesn't help these hitters at all ... *sigh* ...

You can look it up, or trust me - Fenway inflates homeruns by 12%. Ortiz hits more homeruns in Fenway than elsewhere. His numbers would drop in Safeco.

Yeah, without Ichiro they'd have lost more.

Look, if you want to give it to someone on a team that makes the playoffs, do so. Just say that it's not for the best player in the league anymore.

RP is NOT REMOTELY considered the most valid measure of offensive performance. Don't bother. OBP is bullshit?!?! LOL ... Dude, check out any of a number of books on the subject - obviously none of which you've read - try "The Hidden Game of Baseball" for starters - or any of Bill James' books. Then we'll talk. Seriously.

Okay? Okay.

 

[Ranger68]

If Ichiro breaks a record that stood for about 90 years, he may well be chosen the MVP.

And I'd say that he deserved it.

Hey, anyone see what happen last night? That defensive marvel Manny dropped a routine fly, costing his team FOUR UNEARNED RUNS. On the other side of the field, Ichiro singled twice, breaking his own record for singles in a season, and racing closer to the all-time single-season hits record.

Yeah, Manny's CLEARLY the MVP.

 

[Ranger68]

Whether he breaks the record or not he may well be chosen. It will be a travesty! ARod won the last two on crappy Rangers teams, a whole different view of " Valuable ". Guess the writers thought they had to vote for the richest guy. Ichiro has had a great year, should probably win the Aaron Award, but he ain't MVP!

Shouldn't the MVP be the best guy in the league?

No?

A "travesty"??

Please. IMO, giving it to a *clearly inferior player* just because he plays on a better team or in a better home park is CLEARLY the travesty here .....

 

[Ranger68]

PS

Oliver Perez, if he is eligible HAS to be the rookie of the year.

Granted he's only 10-8 but...212 K's in 170.2 IP, highest K/IP ratio in the MAJORS. 3.01 ERA

Simply put, he's amazing.

10-8?!! I'm not giving the award to someone who's got such a mediocre win-loss record! I'll pick the guy who's won the most from a playoff team, thank you!



(Perez isn't eligible, but I'm glad you realize the non-importance of Win-Loss in determining the quality of a pitcher.)

 

[bigdik]

Fenway is 302 down the line, but have you ever actually looked at the park? Within 20 feet of the line it scoots out to 370. Sure, it's a big help on the balls that curl around the pole, but that 390 to the 'pen is a little more of a challenge. Conversely, Yankee Stadium is 314 down the line but tapers gently to the alley, making a "short porch" in left. Fenway is definitely a hitters park, but you seem not to understand in what way. Wade Boggs, for example, was a great hitter at Fenway because he understood how to use the monster to his advantage. David Ortiz does not understand this, the only way he hits a ball to left is if he was looking offspeed and got a fastball. A homerun to the bullpens is not a cheap homer, nor is one to dead center. Had a look at his hit chart? 4 cheap RF corner dingers, the other 11 would have been out anywhere. 15 at Fenway, 21 on the road. Hmmmm.
You definitely are a "moneyball" disciple, and that philosophy has worked well in Oakland, not so well in Toronto. There are many ways to succeed in baseball. Earl Weaver lived by pitching, defence and the 3 run homer. Earl had a little success with that, as I recall.
Stats are a wonderful thing. They can be manipulated to show whatever the user wants. In the end the only stat that truly counts is Won/Lost record........continued

 

[bigdik]

Ranger, you haven't been payoing attention to the crux of my posts. I haven't once said Manny should be MVP. Hell, I don't even think he's the MVP of the RedSox. The Sox would fare better without Manny than they did without Bill Mueller this year, or without Varitek in 2001.
My main point is, the BBWAA, and apparently you, don't understand what the initials MVP stand for. How "valuable" can ANY player be to a team that is 29 games out in their division and 32 behind the wildcard? It's supposed to be "MOST VALUABLE PLAYER". It is NOT for the BEST player, though that is what it has become. I believe that is the wrong interpretation. That was my point from the beginning.
OBP, by the by, is a great measure of a players POTENTIAL contribution, but it means jack if you can't score the damned runs.

 

[Ranger68]

Fenway is 302 down the line, but have you ever actually looked at the park? Within 20 feet of the line it scoots out to 370. Sure, it's a big help on the balls that curl around the pole, but that 390 to the 'pen is a little more of a challenge. Conversely, Yankee Stadium is 314 down the line but tapers gently to the alley, making a "short porch" in left. Fenway is definitely a hitters park, but you seem not to understand in what way. Wade Boggs, for example, was a great hitter at Fenway because he understood how to use the monster to his advantage. David Ortiz does not understand this, the only way he hits a ball to left is if he was looking offspeed and got a fastball. A homerun to the bullpens is not a cheap homer, nor is one to dead center. Had a look at his hit chart? 4 cheap RF corner dingers, the other 11 would have been out anywhere. 15 at Fenway, 21 on the road. Hmmmm.
You definitely are a "moneyball" disciple, and that philosophy has worked well in Oakland, not so well in Toronto. There are many ways to succeed in baseball. Earl Weaver lived by pitching, defence and the 3 run homer. Earl had a little success with that, as I recall.
Stats are a wonderful thing. They can be manipulated to show whatever the user wants. In the end the only stat that truly counts is Won/Lost record........continued

1. Fenway inflates homerun totals by 12%. This is a fact. If you want me to post the left-right splits, I'll do so, but they're not much different.
Again, this is a historical fact, calculated over many decades of research. It has nothing to do with what kind of hitter you think a player is or that I seem "not to understand in what way".

2. How do you think Earl Weaver succeeded with the three-run homer? Dude, he was one of the first, biggest disciples of on-base percentage being the most important offensive stat.

3. You actually need to read some books on these things if you want to continue this discussion.

4. David Ortiz has been a DRASTICALLY better hitter at Fenway over his short career, so I guess you'd better rethink your analysis.

 

[Ranger68]

Ranger, you haven't been payoing attention to the crux of my posts. I haven't once said Manny should be MVP. Hell, I don't even think he's the MVP of the RedSox. The Sox would fare better without Manny than they did without Bill Mueller this year, or without Varitek in 2001.

This is patently false, as Manny has generated more runs than either of these guys, even factoring in his defense. The Sox would lose more games in the standings losing Manny than any other single player. This is the point of doing statistical analyses - so we can determine these things.

My main point is, the BBWAA, and apparently you, don't understand what the initials MVP stand for. How "valuable" can ANY player be to a team that is 29 games out in their division and 32 behind the wildcard? It's supposed to be "MOST VALUABLE PLAYER". It is NOT for the BEST player, though that is what it has become. I believe that is the wrong interpretation.

Ah, I see - so YOU understand what the definition of "MOST VALUABLE PLAYER" is, but neither the BBWAA or I do. LOL
Nice circular argument there. I really can't argue with you anymore, in that case.

How valuable can any player be to a team that is 29 games out in their division and 32 behind the wildcard? More valuable, probably, than the best player on the division-leading teams. Right? If the Mariners lost Ichiro, they'd be worse off than if the Red Sox lost Manny. Isn't that the definition of "most valuable"?

Anyway, your argument holds no water at all. ONCE AGAIN, historically, the award has been given to the *best player*. This seems to me to be eminently reasonable, since it has to be much easier to figure out who the best player is by looking at on-field performance than to try to figure out who the best "leader" is or something like that.

Again, if you would like to see the best player on a playoff team elected, just say so. But, that's no longer the "most valuable player".

That was my point from the beginning.
OBP, by the by, is a great measure of a players POTENTIAL contribution, but it means jack if you can't score the damned runs.

It means that the other players on the team aren't as good as the guy who's getting on base all the time, that's what it means - it is NO reflection whatsoever on the calibre of the player getting aboard.

OBP is probably the single best, easiest stat to look at if you want to determine how much a player helps his team offensively. Period. (OPS is better, but it's a composite stat. Runs Created is probably the most complete. Runs Produced isn't of much value - except in your world.)

By your reasoning, you should take the best team, by record, in both leagues, and give the MVP to the players on those teams with the highest R+RBI totals.

This would give some pretty idiotic MVP's, but probably not in your books.

 

[the_big_E]

Ranger68 this ones for you...I am not sure if you we're being mildly sarcastic when saying win-loss determines the quality of a pitcher...

Well lets compare Oliver Perez to Matt Morris.

Oliver Perez' numbers:
10-8
3.01 ERA (NL rank 4th)
212 Ks (NL rank 4th)
WHIP 1.11 (NL rank 4th)
Opp BAA .202 (NL rank 2nd)

Matt Morris:
15-9
4.69 ERA (NL rank 32nd)
119 Ks (NL rank 24th)
WHIP 1.30 (NL rank 20th)
Opp BAA .267 (NL rank 29th)

So Morris is the better pitcher because he has 5 more wins? No he isnt, he is clearly inferior compared to Perez. Lest you forget I was merely talking about Perez as the Rookie of the year not the CY Young winner. Wouldnt you want the pitcher that gives you a chance to WIN every game he starts? Last time I checked pitchers are there to prevent runs, not score them. It is not Perez's fault he plays for Pittsburgh. He has been a top 6 starting pitcher in the NL all year and I defy you to tell me otherwise!

 

[homonger]

2. How do you think Earl Weaver succeeded with the three-run homer? Dude, he was one of the first, biggest disciples of on-base percentage being the most important offensive stat.

Earl Weaver played moneyball before it was called moneyball. He liked players who could get on base, and who had power. He also valued outs, eschewing the sacrifice bunt and the steal.

I don't have much to add to the argument against anyone who says OBP is a worthless stat. Yes, someone has to drive those guys in, but no other stat correlates as well to runs scored as OBP. I guarantee you that if a team's leadoff hitter has an OBP of .390 or higher, someone else on that team is driving in 100 runs.

Here's another argument I'd like to start... who believes there is such a thing as "clutch hitting", and who does not?