Most Valuable Player American League

[kevinb]

4 minutes ago, ScottT said:

Trout has built up quite a lead in many of those advanced statistics.

If you remove Kris Bryan from the Cubs, they still win the division.  Donaldson gets the nod because his teammates are good enough, but not too good? 

Do they? Depends who your replacing Bryant with. 

[eaterfan]

16 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

But how do u say what someone is doing on a playoff team is better than one someone is doing on a team not sniffing the playoffs. At some point team wins has to account for something. 

Why?

[mulwin444]

3 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

But how do u say what someone is doing on a playoff team is better than one someone is doing on a team not sniffing the playoffs. At some point team wins has to account for something. 

A player can only control what he himself can influence.  Mike Trout leads the league in walks and OBP...by a lot.  The reason Pujols has a butt load of RBI this season is because of Trout...the reason Trout isn't leading the league in RBI is because someone like Trout is not hitting in front on him. He has a 1.000 OPS with RISP, in high leverage situations or whether it's the 3rd inning, 6th inning or 9th inning.  He has one of the best stolen bases percentages in the league. He also is also a great defender at a premium defensive position who has worked on his throwing arm strength and accuracy to get 7 OF assists this seasons.  He has a 9.2 WAR with a month left.  Wins matter for the team, the team collectively with the best players win pennants and championships.  The MVP award is an individual award supposedly awarded to the best player. 

[Angelsjunky]

4 hours ago, Stradling said:

It isn't that the MVP award is useless or tainted, we should just value other awards more, for example the Hank Aaron Award.  

The Hank Aaron Award is lame - it is based only on hits, HR, and RBI. It is even older school than MVP, although at least it is objective.

[Taylor]

49 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

He has had nice stretches, and he obviously can still hit, but the numbers are just not that impressive for a bat only player. The 130 wRC+ on the back of a .293 BA in the second half is nice, but he had a .287 OBP in August, he has 4 doubles in the second half and just 15 overall (wRC+ of 111) for the year. 

In 2012, his disappointing first season, he had 50 doubles a 133 wRC+ overall and 154 in the second half. 

It feels less like he has improved as the year went on and more that our expectations have diminished.

I've never heard of those stats, so they're irrelevant for this discussion.

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

The Hank Aaron Award is lame - it is based only on hits, HR, and RBI. It is even older school than MVP, although at least it is objective.

Isn't there another one based on fan voting?

[Angelsjunky]

This debate will go on until the end of time and hinges on whether "MVP" means "best player in the league" or "best player on a playoff team." There are secondary topics like, "most grit from a good player on a baseball team" (e.g. Kirk Gibson) or "RBI boners" or what place pitchers have in the discussion.

I'm a big advocate of nerd stats, but I don't think they're absolute. My general formula for picking the MVP would be something like this: First of all, ignore pitchers unless one is so incredible AND there are no really good position players.

Anyhow, I'd look at stats in three categories:

Primary: WAR. It isn't perfect, it it is the best we've got right now.

Secondary: OPS+, wRC+, wOBA - those stats that take into account total offensive value.

Tertiary: Traditional stats - BA, OBP, SLG, HR, RBI, Runs, SB, etc.

I'd then look at where players rank among each category, with Primary receiving a 50% share, Secondary a 30% share, and tertiary a 20% share. The player with the best overall ranking would be the MVP.

Oh yeah, I might break ties or very close results by giving the nod to the player on the best team, just for old time's sake.

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

Neither is whatever RC27 means and I stand by my other point in the post. Take away Trout and we are still a last place team. Put Trout on our team and were in last place. That has to account for something. If u have a guy who rushed for 2200 years in football but the team finishes in last he doesn't win the MVP. I don't know what the hell WAR is and how it's measured. Please tell me who the replacement player is. Trout is GREAT stop acting like I'm saying he is not. His team is lousy he's not the MVP someone else will win it on a playoff team and deservedly so. 

You are the one who said if you are on a last place team you have to do something special, like lead in Runs or RBI, to be considered.  Well he leads in almost every offensive category and all of that alphabet soup of stats means a ton more than leading in runs and or RBI 

[kevinb]

28 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

Why?

Because it should mean something. If it's most valuable player to me that means you've helped your team win and if you help your team win enough to get to the post season that should mean something. this is gonna ramble so forgive me. In football if your team is always down you stop running the ball so your qb gets a ton of passing yards and touchdowns. But it really doesn't matter cause you were down by 20 or 30 pts anyway. Eventually you have to put up those numbers to win actual games not just a stat guy. Would you rather have Peyton or Brady. Peyton's stats were better but Brady is the qb everyone wants. I know it's not apples to apples but that's just my thinking. Trout is amazing and it shouldn't matter how bad his team is but to me it does. You gotta at least be in the discussion of the playoffs not 20 plus games out of first. 

[Stradling]

On August 29, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Kevinb said:

I said if he is on a last place team he should be leading the league head and shoulders in something like those categories he isn't. if your one last place team show me something I've never seen before in a category I know not some random war stat. If he was on a better team he'd put up better run scoring and rbi numbers but he's not. He's amazing. On a last place team he shouldn't win mvp. And yes the games are relevant to other teams just not the Angels. When the Angels are in last place the only relevance there is to Angels fans or players will be how much time left till they can go on vacation. 

 

[Stradling]

On August 28, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Kevinb said:

He's the best all around player in baseball. Hes not driving in runs at a huge rate. He doesn't have the most steals. He doesn't lead the league in scoring runs. He leads in walks and adjusted ops + which I don't know what that means  he's great no ones disputing that. But if your gonna get MVP as the best player on the worst team you better league the lead in scoring runs or driving in runs 

 

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

You are the one who said if you are on a last place team you have to do something special, like lead in Runs or RBI, to be considered.  Well he leads in almost every offensive category and all of that alphabet soup of stats means a ton more than leading in runs and or RBI 

Ok. Again I don't know what those random super stats mean but how far and above the next person is he in those stats than the people he is competing against in the award. 

[kevinb]

28 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I've never heard of those stats, so they're irrelevant for this discussion.

Ya not what I said but ok. 

[Angelsjunky]

So my question for you, Kevinb, is what more could he possibly do to help his team win? He's already the best player in the game, and has been for five years.

[Angelsjunky]

2 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Ok. Again I don't know what those random super stats mean but how far and above the next person is he in those stats than the people he is competing against in the award. 

WAR is the best overall indicator of player value. Here are the current top three, according to two versions:

Fangraphs

8.1 Trout

7.1 Donaldson

6.6 Altuve

Baseball Reference

9.2 Trout

7.8 Betts

7.2 Altuve

 

So as you can see, he has a sizable lead in both versions.

To be clear, I'm not totally opposed to the more traditional "best player on a playoff team" perspective, or at least think it should be part of the conversation. but in general, I think it should be used as no more than a tie-breaker. For example, last year I think Donaldson was a good choice because they were very close in WAR (8.9 to Trout, 8.8 to Donaldson--at least via Fangraphs; Trout was up 9.9 to 8.8 in BR).

 

 

[Angelsjunky]

Now if the gap is narrowed and Donaldson, Aluve, and/or Betts are all within half a WAR or so, I think there is a debate. But as long as it is about one WAR or more ahead, I think the award is (or should be) clearly Trout.

[kevinb]

Just now, Angelsjunky said:

So my question for you, Kevinb, is what more could he possibly do to help his team win? He's already the best player in the game, and has been for five years.

I don't know. I agree he is the best player in the game and over the last five years he has proved that. Some years he wasn't the best but he was 2nd in that WAR stat but overall over the 5 years he is the best. My only argument is the wording of "valuable" we all agree if he was on the Cubs or Texas he would be unanimous MVP because they are in first place. But the Angels are in last or 4th which ever week you wanna have this discussion. And how can you tell me that if he was on the team were in 5th (or 4th) and if he is off the team we are still in 5th or 4th. Take Bryant away from the Cubs maybe they are in 2nd and don't have the best record in baseball and maybe miss the playoffs. Again I just prefer the MVP go to a guy who's on a team that is relevant and at least fighting for a playoff spot ya know?

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

Now if the gap is narrowed and Donaldson, Aluve, and/or Betts are all within half a WAR or so, I think there is a debate. But as long as it is about one WAR or more ahead, I think the award is (or should be) clearly Trout.

Ok and this isn't something I can answer so don't think I'm trying to be a smart ass. if 1 WAR is a huge difference how is baseball reference and off by 1.1 from each other? 

[Angelsjunky]

I hear you, Kevinb, which is why there is no clearcut way to decide this. In fact, the BBWAA doesn't have a clear definition of what "valuable" means as it says on their ballot:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1.  Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2.  Number of games played.

3.  General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4.  Former winners are eligible.

5.  Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

 

[kevinb]

I am just hoping to have a loyalty debate on the MVP race soon. 

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

Ok and this isn't something I can answer so don't think I'm trying to be a smart ass. if 1 WAR is a huge difference how is baseball reference and off by 1.1 from each other? 

Well, 1 WAR isn't a huge difference. In fact, Head Nerd at Fangraphs, Dave Cameron, says you really need a 1 WAR margin of error.

Anyhow, they use different formula. I see WAR as kind of like a technological grail for which there are different tech firms developing their own versions, trying to make the best one. But so far it isn't clear which is best. If we average the two out we get:

8.7 Trout

7.2 Betts

7.0 Donaldson

6.9 Altuve

6.3 Machado

So by averaging them out, he's actually 1.5 ahead of the next guy.

[kevinb]

1 minute ago, Angelsjunky said:

Well, 1 WAR isn't a huge difference. In fact, Head Nerd at Fangraphs, Dave Cameron, says you really need a 1 WAR margin of error.

Anyhow, they use different formula. I see WAR as kind of like a technological grail for which there are different tech firms developing their own versions, trying to make the best one. But so far it isn't clear which is best. If we average the two out we get:

8.7 Trout

7.2 Betts

7.0 Donaldson

6.9 Altuve

6.3 Machado

So by averaging them out, he's actually 1.5 ahead of the next guy.

Ok that makes more sense. But a lot of that WAR comes from defense right? And the defense one from a couple people answering some random questions of mine is pretty off. Didn't some say that Trout on one of those stats was a below average CF and another one said he was a good or great CF? Again just asking not trying to be an ass or something. I know if I read this stuff on a website I think I'd be lost haha

[Stradling]

Ok @Kevinb most of those stats I showed you were offensive stats and he is first in almost every single one of them.  So you ask what is the margin between Trout and the next guy, well I highly doubt there is another offensive player that is close on all of those  offensive stats.  Maybe Donaldson or Betts might be close on a few, but not on every single one of them like Trout.  

[Dick B Back]

2 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

 

I feel like you guys are watching a different Albert than I am. The homeruns are nice. The average w/RISP is nice. In general though, watching him play is almost sad, a reminder that father time is undefeated and no one, no matter how great, can avoid their eventual uselessness. 

But but but... Albert!

[Dick B Back]

51 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

WAR is the best overall indicator of player value. Here are the current top three, according to two versions:

Fangraphs

8.1 Trout

7.1 Donaldson

6.6 Altuve

Baseball Reference

9.2 Trout

7.8 Betts

7.2 Altuve

 

So as you can see, he has a sizable lead in both versions.

To be clear, I'm not totally opposed to the more traditional "best player on a playoff team" perspective, or at least think it should be part of the conversation. but in general, I think it should be used as no more than a tie-breaker. For example, last year I think Donaldson was a good choice because they were very close in WAR (8.9 to Trout, 8.8 to Donaldson--at least via Fangraphs; Trout was up 9.9 to 8.8 in BR).

 

 

Trout is clearly the leader for the Best Overall Player Value award. I like it!