Cy Young and MVP Choices

[Ranger68]

After having done some analysis, I think the MVP of the AL right now is Ichiro. The analysis isn't done, but, not factoring in defense, Ichiro seems to have created more runs just offensively than Manny.
I used the following formula:
(H+BB)*(total bases)/(AB+BB)
In any given year, almost every team will end up with runs scored within 5% of this number.
The results, to this point of the season:
Ramirez, 117
Ichiro, 113
Ortiz, 110
Guerrero, 109
Sheffield, 107
Correcting for park factor (even using three-year weighted park factors - 50%-25%-25% - which are more stable than individual years' values):
Ichiro, 124
Guerrero, 115
Sheffield, 112
Ramirez, 110
Guillen, 110
I haven't run this for everyone in the AL, just ten top guys.
But the results seem to indicate that Ichiro has helped his team far more than Ramirez has helped his - and that's not even factoring in defense or baserunning, which we know are going to favour Ichiro drastically.

At this point, Ichiro Suzuki is the AL MVP.

 

[the_big_E]

Slugging and runs...are the only categories where he is doing significantly better at home. All the other categories are better at home but not insanely better thats all I'm saying it isnt all about slugging.

Its not like his numbers are Vinny Castilla-esque when you compare home and away...

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlbpa/players/4746/splits

now thats a huge difference, even though he actually has more HR on the road, go figure

 

[Ranger68]

Slugging percentage is a HUGE number. EXTREMELY important.
He's slugging SEVENTY POINTS HIGHER.
AGAIN, for the last time: no, Fenway isn't Coors. So? Fenway inflates stats by about 10%. Coors inflates them by about 40%. That doesn't mean you can't compensate for BOTH.

(And, actually, you weren't even telling the truth about "just" slugging and runs - he has more doubles, homers, and rbi, too - but you don't care, do you?)

ESPN actually has the *real* formula for Runs Created, and you can look it up (thankfully, I now don't have to run the calculation myself - I love the internet):
Ichiro 112.7
Ramirez 109.4
That's without park factor or defense figured in.

Ramirez, though he may very well win it, is NOT the most valuable player in the league this year. He may not even be in the top five, once you figure in defense and park.

 

[homonger]

I haven't followed baseball enough this year to have any strong opinions as to who should win MVP, Cy Young, etc. However, this discussion proves to me how variable the words "Most Valuable Player" are to people. You have those who insist an MVP must play on a pennant/division winner, or at least a strong contender (this I do agree with). Then you have those who believe that only position players can be MVP's, and not pitchers (this I think is silly). And then finally, I really severely doubt that most of the chuckleheads who are doing the actual voting are doing any park or other contextual adjustments. They are looking at the typical numbers--BA, HR, RBI, maybe runs.

On the pitching side, gaudy statistics like wins and ERA always catch the voters' attention, but these are extremely subjective statistics, subject to such factors as how good a team's offense is, how good a team's defense is, and even something stupid like how much freaking foul territory there is. I think it is interesting that the latest line of thinking on how to judge a pitcher's performance is to focus on three things--walks, strikeouts, home runs allowed--that is, the only three things the pitchers has direct control over.

 

[Ranger68]

You're absolutely right - most of the voters don't properly understand baseball statistics at all - that's why you get results like Andre Dawson winning in '87.

As far as pitchers winning it, I think it's rare that a pitcher contributes as much to a team's wins as the best players in the league, so it's perfectly reasonable that pitchers rarely win. Also, ERA isn't really all *that* subjective - this is a very good indicator of overall pitching ability, despite the fact that it involves a team defense. Yes, walks, strikeouts and homeruns are very interesting and useful indicators of pitching ability - and three of the only ones that don't involved the defense (although homeruns does involve park factor, though ) - but it's hard to get a complete picture of a pitcher without using ERA and BAA, say. You can compensate for a team's defense when regarding ERA, albeit with difficulty. Anyway, point definitely taken.

You could reasonably accurately say that Wins alone is the best predictor of the Cy Young award, unfortunately.
Sad, isn't it?

 

[homonger]

As far as pitchers winning it, I think it's rare that a pitcher contributes as much to a team's wins as the best players in the league, so it's perfectly reasonable that pitchers rarely win.

My counterpoint to this position is that your average everyday position player comes up to bat about 600 times a year. Your average front line starter faces about 750 batters a year. Therefore, you can't tell me pitchers don't have as much an influence on the outcomes of games as position players.

Anyway, it boils down to what "Most Valuable" means to you, and I would maintain that "Most Valuable" and most impressive hitting statistics are not the same thing.

 

[Ranger68]

The problem with that statement is that the pitcher-batter confrontation is driven by the batter. It's not a fifty-fifty proposition. That is, the quality of the hitter drives the result of an at-bat more than the quality of the pitcher. For example, the best hitter in the league hits homers more frequently than the worst pitcher in the league allows. The worst hitter in the league hits homers far less frequently than the best pitcher in the league allows. The confrontation is controlled, primarily, by the batter. Not exclusively, but primarily. This edge is *not* offset by the larger number of batters faced by front-line starters. Bill James talked about this in one of his essays. I'll point you to it, if you're interested. The variation is higher for hitters than pitchers - for full-time players, the best hitters create more runs than the best pitchers save, the worst pitchers save more runs than the worst hitters create. The pitchers are arrayed closer to the centre than hitters.

But, this is why the best pitchers rarely save as many runs for a team as the best hitters create for a team.
(And, of course, your numbers are off - most premiere hitters get 650 or so PA, not 600.)

Of course, that doesn't even take into account defense - pitching isn't a very important defensive position. Not that most of the BBWAA take defense into consideration either, but in a real analysis, it's got to be a factor.

I generally agree, though, that "Most Valuable" does not equate to "most impressive hitting statistics", although the two are *often* the same - pretty much every season Bonds has had for the last few years, it has.

It is, however, unfortunate, that most of the voters equate it to "most homeruns and rbi".

I wouldn't be upset to see a pitcher win every ten or twelve years. I don't think this is one of those years, though. (Don't hold me to that ..... )

 

[SaveFerris]

Regarding the debate re MVP should come from a winning team or not....this will never be solved, because there always will be years when somebody will be head and shoulders above every other player in terms of stats, but play on a weak team. Therefore, this argument will be renewed every time that happens.

But the one thing I think the voters SHOULD agree on is that the MVP voting should be for hitters only; pitchers have the Cy Young. Not only does this ensure that a hitter will always win one of the 3 major awards, but it would finally put to bed the argument that a pitcher who does not play every day (starting pitcher gets usually 35 games, a reliever about double that) cannot possibly be more valuable than a hitter who is in the lineup close to 162 games.

 

[Ranger68]

LOL Yes, this is revisited every year. .......

If they clarified the rules too much, though, we wouldn't have anything to argue about.

Anyway, you've exaggerated the difference between a pitcher (a starter, anyway) and a position player.

The game is, always, a confrontation between offense and defense. The offense is comprised of the batter and runners aboard. The defense is comprised of the pitcher and defense. So, anything a hitter does reflects perfectly on the defense - a hit by the batter is a hit allowed by the defense. You can look at it the way that homonger did - the best starters will face in the vicinity of 1000 plate appearances - the best hitters will have on the order of 650 or 700 plate appearances (to use more realistic numbers).

These numbers are compensated for by the fact that players also impact on the defensive equation, and that the hitter has more of an effect on the results of a plate appearance than the pitcher.

The net result is that the best players in the league probably create more runs for their teams than the best pitchers save, although the margin isn't necessarily all that large - certainly nothing like your 162 to 35 would indicate.

Finally, I'll posit that to give the award to a reliever is probably just plain foolish, at least the way that relievers are treated these days - with kid gloves .......

 

[homonger]

The problem with that statement is that the pitcher-batter confrontation is driven by the batter. It's not a fifty-fifty proposition. That is, the quality of the hitter drives the result of an at-bat more than the quality of the pitcher.

How did I get sucked into this? Anyway, ranger, you obviously know what you are talking about and have the read the same books I have. I am wondering about this statement, however. I am not sure if I agree... to paraphrase Yogi Berra, half of baseball is 90% pitching, and the usual line baseball people give is that good pitching beats good hitting.

I do agree that a good disciplined hitter has more of a chance than the common wisdom would suggest... and that a good disciplined hitter should be able to control the at bat and give himself the best chance possible to get on base. Trouble is, there aren't that many of those kinds of hitters around, and therefore I do believe that pitchers control most batter/pitcher confrontations.

But the bottom line in this argument should be, does a batter generate more runs than a pitcher prevents? Runs should be the bottom line currency in this discussion, and if there was a pitcher who prevented more runs than the best hitter created (leaving defense out of it for the moment), then that pitcher should be the MVP.

 

[shack]

But the bottom line in this argument should be, does a batter generate more runs than a pitcher prevents? Runs should be the bottom line currency in this discussion,

I bet you don't get the last word in this discussion.

 

[RemyMartin]

I bet everybody knows who will get the last word in any discussion here.

 

[Don]

I think it's rare that a pitcher contributes as much to a team's wins as the best players in the league,

I tend to feel that pitching is more valuable... and a top notch pitcher is more valuable than a top notch hitter.

If I was putting together a team and you can choose between a top ace or a top hitter and gold glover, I'd choose the ace. Remember you can pitch around Barry Bonds. Batters can't avoid facing Randy Johnson.

 

[Ranger68]

How did I get sucked into this? Anyway, ranger, you obviously know what you are talking about and have the read the same books I have. I am wondering about this statement, however. I am not sure if I agree... to paraphrase Yogi Berra, half of baseball is 90% pitching, and the usual line baseball people give is that good pitching beats good hitting.

I do agree that a good disciplined hitter has more of a chance than the common wisdom would suggest... and that a good disciplined hitter should be able to control the at bat and give himself the best chance possible to get on base. Trouble is, there aren't that many of those kinds of hitters around, and therefore I do believe that pitchers control most batter/pitcher confrontations.

But the bottom line in this argument should be, does a batter generate more runs than a pitcher prevents? Runs should be the bottom line currency in this discussion, and if there was a pitcher who prevented more runs than the best hitter created (leaving defense out of it for the moment), then that pitcher should be the MVP.

The position that "baseball is 75% pitching" dies hard. Good hitting beats good pitching - it's clear, from EVERY analysis of the game, that the batter is the dominant term in the equation.

Although, perhaps to Yogi's credit, for many years (many years after Yogi's departure from the game, that is), the actual defense - as separate from the pitching - was credited with only some small percentage of the defensive side of the equation - perhaps 10% - which would make Yogi's comment very precise. More recent studies assign pitching somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2/3 of the credit for defense - in Win Shares, James uses 67.5%, I believe. In any case, since hitting is clearly practically the entire other side, even in Yogi's words, the batter brings more to the confrontation than the pitcher.

If pitchers controlled the equation, then why are the numbers for hitters distributed more than the numbers for pitchers? This indicates the opposite.

I agree entirely with your last statement - except the part about leaving defense out of it. However, NO analysis of the game that I've ever read has pitchers saving more runs, generally, than hitters create. Sometimes, it's close - but generally, position players dominate.

 

[Ranger68]

I tend to feel that pitching is more valuable... and a top notch pitcher is more valuable than a top notch hitter.

If I was putting together a team and you can choose between a top ace or a top hitter and gold glover, I'd choose the ace. Remember you can pitch around Barry Bonds. Batters can't avoid facing Randy Johnson.

Every time you pitch around Bonds, you're putting another runner on base.

I mentioned this earlier, but if you walk Bonds every time up, say, you're hurting your team far more than you're helping it.

Bonds creates more runs for his team than any pitcher (in history?) saves for his.

When you say you'd take a premiere starting pitcher over Bonds, though, you might be commenting on the scarcity of those pitchers vs. the relatively larger number of players who can generate lots of runs, or the relatively larger number of good-hitting left-fielders say. But, in absolute terms, Bonds helps his team more.

 

[Bush League]

Asshole!!!

I find it ironic that we are penalizing Manny for his defense, but Bonds isn't anywhere close to his prime in the field. If we look at defense at all, then Rolen has to have serious consideration. Oh yeah, how about winning too. Besides, is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Bonds is on the juice? His trainer already confessed. Of course he'll never admit it. I've got more respect for Rose right now. I feel pretty confident that Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Williams... were clean. Who gives a shit if he breaks any records. They are all tainted. I'm glad they don't pitch to him, and I hope he retires before he catches Aaron. He doesn't deserve it and would never appreciate it.

 

[Ranger68]

Bonds isn't anywhere close, but he's *STILL* a better fielder than Manny.

Rolen's defense doesn't come anywhere near compensating for Bonds massive offensive advantage.

If you want to vote for a winner, fine - it's never been done like that, and IMO that's a good thing.

Is there any doubt that *MANY* of these players are juiced?

Look, I think Bonds is an assh*le, too. That doesn't diminish from his achievements. As for your comment about Aaron et al - I notice you didn't put Cobb in that list. Do you think guys like that - assh*les or cheaters - don't belong in the Hall of Fame? Should we have a stat that compensates for a persons' character? ..... Are you aware that one of Babe Ruth's bats in the Hall was recently discovered to have been corked? ... Are you still sure all of those guys were "clean"?

As for "deserving it", if he can do it, he deserves it.

 

[bigdik]

AL MVP

One thing everyone who has weighed in on this debate seems to miss is the David Ortiz factor, and the rest of the Sox lineup. It's a pretty simple formula, Damon @ .389, and Bellhorn when healthy @ .376, have pretty high OBP's. Classic table setters. Ortiz is hitting .300 with 36 HR's - 2nd and 124 RBIs - 1st, Slugging % .609, also 2nd. The A's walked Manny to load the bases in a 1 run game Monday, Ortiz cleared 'em with a double. That guarantees Manny will be pitched to a lot more often than if the hitter behind him were, say, Edgardo Alfonzo.
Another thing not said, about the Fenway Factor. The monster giveth, but also taketh away. Quite a few line shots off the wall that end up as singles or doubles would be Home Runs in a lot of parks, though likely not as many as the routine fly balls that end up in the screen.
Manny is a hell of a hitter, having a good year, but he's on a hell of a ballclub too.
Just sayin' is all

 

[Ranger68]

No, I didn't miss Ortiz - I ignored him. Ortiz doesn't have the stats that Manny does, and both of them are inflated by playing in Fenway.
Once again, playing in Fenway inflates hitting stats by about ten percent, you can spin it anyway you like - the wall does this, the wall does that - it doesn't matter - you can look it up - players hit better in Fenway than most (not all) of the places in the AL.
Yep, Manny is a hell of a hitter.

So's Ichiro - and he may just break the all-time hit record this year, while NOT playing in a hitters' park.

I still think the race is pretty damn close, unlike the NL.

One thing is certain - the BBWAA will give LOTS of votes to both Ortiz and Manny, for the road to the MVP is paved with dingers and ribs.

 

[Ranger68]

Fenway Factor

Historically, that is over *70-odd years* of accumulating statistics, run scoring has been inflated by about 14% in Fenway, and homeruns by about 12%.

Let's just look at the top three hitters on the team, and use OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging - a good measure of a hitters' ability to create runs):
Ramirez - Home 1.066, Away 0.998 (+7%)
Ramirez 2003 - Home 1.028, Away 1.000 (+3%)
Ortiz - Home 0.985, Away 0.980 (+1%)
Ortiz 2003 - Home 1.033, Away 0.876 (+18%)
Damon - Home 0.923, Away 0.804 (+15%)
Damon 2003 - Home 0.791, Away 0.705 (+12%)

Now, how about those numbers for, say some guys from Seattle (a bad hitting park):
Suzuki - Home 0.818, Away 0.949 (-14%)
Suzuki 2003 - Home 0.807, Away 0.769 (+5%)
Boone - Home 0.740, Away 0.735 (+1%)
Boone 2003 - Home 0.889, Away 0.914 (-3%)
Martinez - Home 0.744, Away 0.799 (-7%)
Martinez 2003 - Home 0.752, Away 1.037 (-27%)

You can look at the aggregates, rather than individual cases, and they tell the tale even better.
However, these numbers should tell you two things:
first, that hitting at home isn't always an advantage, depending upon your home park;
second, that the home park of some players inflates their stats relative to players who play elsewhere.

Is Ramirez a great hitter? Certainly. Are his numbers inflated by playing in Fenway? Absolutely.
(Again, just to deflect the inevitable comment - yes, the stats of everyone who plays 81 games at Coors are *dramatically* inflated - much more than those guys who play at Fenway.)

What does this mean?
Well, for one thing, that a .550 slugger in Safeco may be very comparable to a .625 slugger in Fenway.
IMO, to hand out MVP awards without giving *some* consideration to home park is just dumb. You wouldn't fail to consider that a guy plays half his games in Coors, and you shouldn't do it for Fenway, either - in fact, you should consider where *every* MVP candidate plays.