MVP Winners

[Big Wil]

This might be considered minor to most players, but it is driving me crazy.
Player A and Player B both play for Team 1 (record 102wins 60losses. 3rd straight division title)

Player A--22hr 106rbi .339avg(Batting Title) 72.4vorp
Player B--39hr 128rbi .309avg 65.3vorp

Player C plays for team B (record 84wins 78 losses 3rd place 18games out. Never in pennant race.

Player C--20hr 98rbi .326avg 79.3vorp

Why is player C MVP of the league? Who cares if he has a higher VORP. His record isn't as good as the other two players. His team wasn't as nearly as good. How is he most valuable. Basing the MVP on the highest VORP should only apply for first place teams not teams 18 games out. Sure the MVP votiing can get controversial but players with inferior records playing for inferior teams do not get voted MVP.

Whew. Thank you for letting me vent.

[dickbaveta]

Easy, the two players on the same team split the votes and player C snuck in.

[kq76]

Humour me. Pick the player you think deserves to be MVP. Now imagine that before the season he was traded for equal value (multiple players going the other way?) and all the players and teams then proceeded to produce how they ended up doing in your sim (same stats and record). Is the player you picked no longer deserving of being the MVP because he is now on the team 18 games out? If so, then you and I simply disagree on what makes an MVP. To me, the MVP is simply the best player, not the best player on a contending team.

Or maybe you're just stuck on the outdated thinking that HR, RBI and Avg matter a whole lot. What are the OBP and SLG of each player?

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by Big Wil

Why is player C MVP of the league? Who cares if he has a higher VORP. His record isn't as good as the other two players. His team wasn't as nearly as good. How is he most valuable. Basing the MVP on the highest VORP should only apply for first place teams not teams 18 games out. Sure the MVP votiing can get controversial but players with inferior records playing for inferior teams do not get voted MVP.

If your prerequesites for voting someone MVP include being on a playoff team, then your questions are completely understandable. Many people vote based on statistics alone, however, when it comes to MVP, equating "valuable" with "outstanding". Also, it is possible that Player C was more valuable to his team than Player A or B were. The latter two could have an extremely strong supporting cast around them.

Answer this question: was Dawson deserving of MVP in 1987? Your answer will determine how you answer the question of why Player C was voted MVP.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

Answer this question: was Dawson deserving of MVP in 1987? Your answer will determine how you answer the question of why Player C was voted MVP.

That's an interesting way to put it.

For those who don't know, Dawson played for the last place Cubs in '87, but he led the NL in both HRs and RBIs with 49 and 137 respectively with a .287 BA. His PA, OBP, SLG were 662, .328, .568, which were pretty good, but not even close to the best.

This is how the voting broke down:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/aw...87.shtml#NLmvp

It seems that voters only considered HR, RBI, BA in awarding Dawson the MVP that year, something which seems absurd to a lot of people now.

If someone back then was to base their vote on the best player on a contending team, they'd probably consider Smith, Clark (Jack and Will), Wallach, Strawberry, Raines, Davis, Johnson, Coleman, etc.

But if you're like me and don't think the best player should be punished for having lousy teammates all around him, then Dale Murphy would probably have been your man (PA, OBP, SLG of 693, .417, .580) who played for the Braves who had even less wins than the Cubs that year.

Now I'd like to give Ozzie Smith the credit due for his defense that it looks like many voters did that year, but I just can't convert his defensive value. Likewise, I just can't compare pitching to batting.

[Big Wil]

Originally Posted by kq76

Humour me. Pick the player you think deserves to be MVP. Now imagine that before the season he was traded for equal value (multiple players going the other way?) and all the players and teams then proceeded to produce how they ended up doing in your sim (same stats and record). Is the player you picked no longer deserving of being the MVP because he is now on the team 18 games out? If so, then you and I simply disagree on what makes an MVP. To me, the MVP is simply the best player, not the best player on a contending team.

Or maybe you're just stuck on the outdated thinking that HR, RBI and Avg matter a whole lot. What are the OBP and SLG of each player?

This is my point. Player C was neither the best player nor the best player on a contening club. If he had the same stats for the first place team and Player A and B played for a team 18 games out then I could understand using the VORP as a basis for choosing MVP. As it is there is no basis for Player C. He wasn't as good as a player NOR did he play for a contending ball club.

[Big Wil]

This is how they compared with obp and slg

player A .380 .535
player B .367 .545
Player C .393 .527

Player C was better in obp but worse in slg This doesn't give him a statistical edge in the MVP voting. And he couldn't be that valuable to his team seeing they only won 84 games and was 18 games out of first.

I just think that in cases such as this I should have a way to overide the MVP vote. I just don't like basing MVP on the VORP. It's just not realistic.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Big Wil

This is my point. Player C was neither the best player nor the best player on a contening club. If he had the same stats for the first place team and Player A and B played for a team 18 games out then I could understand using the VORP as a basis for choosing MVP. As it is there is no basis for Player C. He wasn't as good as a player NOR did he play for a contending ball club.

Player C wasn't the best player? What are you basing that on, HR, RBI and BA? If so, then you might want to read some sabermetric articles. Or just think of this: OBP tells you more than BA (if you don't care about walking then you're going to miss out on scoring a lot of runs), SLG tells you more than HR (HRs are great, but doubles and triples do a whole lot of damage too), and RBI largely depends on teammates in front of you so that really doesn't tell you much about that player. But you need PA because with just rate stats you could have a guy who played great, but played in so few games that he really didn't contribute much. The difference in VORP tells me that his PA, OBP, SLG were most likely superior to that of the others which tells me he most likely was the best player.

[Big Wil]

Originally Posted by kq76

Player C wasn't the best player? What are you basing that on, HR, RBI and BA? If so, then you might want to read some sabermetric articles. Or just think of this: OBP tells you more than BA (if you don't care about walking then you're going to miss out on scoring a lot of runs), SLG tells you more than HR (HRs are great, but doubles and triples do a whole lot of damage too), and RBI largely depends on teammates in front of you so that really doesn't tell you much about that player. But you need PA because with just rate stats you could have a guy who played great, but played in so few games that he really didn't contribute much. The difference in VORP tells me that his PA, OBP, SLG were most likely superior to that of the others which tells me he most likely was the best player.

You can quote me all the stat data how this stat works with that stat and still doesn't change the basic truth. Sluggers win MVP awards. When sluggers don't win MVP the non slugger who does win it plays for a contening team. If VORP, OBP or some other obscure stat is to be used for MVP it should only be used for players on contending teams.

So yes, you can make an argument for Andre Dawson winning the MVP.(Wasn't my choice but yea I can see it.) But if Andre Dawson had played for a first place team he would have been a lock. Nobody was going to be voted MVP based on the fact they had a better OBP especially playing for a non contender

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Big Wil

This is how they compared with obp and slg

player A .380 .535
player B .367 .545
Player C .393 .527

Sorry, I forgot to request PA in my initial post. OBP and SLG alone don't tell enough as I explained in my previous post.

Originally Posted by Big Wil

Player C was better in obp but worse in slg This doesn't give him a statistical edge in the MVP voting.

Actually, some people, like myself, believe OBP is worth a lot more than SLG. If you just went with OPS, which most people seem good with, C would win:

A .915
B .912
C .920

If you went with 1.8xOBP + SLG, the case gets even stronger:

A 1.219
B 1.206
C 1.234

Originally Posted by Big Wil

I just think that in cases such as this I should have a way to overide the MVP vote.

I agree, I wish there was a way we could override it. It's our universe, we should be able to decide what it's based on.

Originally Posted by Big Wil

I just don't like basing MVP on the VORP. It's just not realistic.

True, it probably is not realistic as things are now, but I hope it will become more realistic in the future.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Big Wil

If VORP, OBP or some other obscure stat is to be used for MVP it should only be used for players on contending teams.

Well, that's your opinion, one I strongly disagree with. But it's your game and I agree that you should be able to determine how the MVP is determined in your universe.

Originally Posted by Big Wil

Nobody was going to be voted MVP based on the fact they had a better OBP especially playing for a non contender.

We'll see. I think it might happen one day. I don't think it will be based on just OBP though.

[tysok]

Originally Posted by dickbaveta

Easy, the two players on the same team split the votes and player C snuck in.

This is the answer.

MVP should be fairly basic, VORP does a fairly good job... but the VORP leader is not necessarily made the MVP, which is good. I had league full of junk catchers and my catcher put up an unbleivably stupid VORP number, he was not made the MVP.

MVP is the most valuable player for his team. The voting should be, if you take that guy off the team does that team win as many games? In the case of player A and B they have two driving forces on that team, take one away and they still have a superstar putting up godlike numbers.
If you take player C off that team, do they have a superstar putting up useful numbers? Since he didn't even break the 100 RBI mark, I assume without him the team would have lost far more games than they did.

I would like to see Win Shares put into the game, and the MVP based on that. Since Win Shares brought up the correct MVP in a huge majority of the years of real MLB that's a far far better stat to base largest part of MVP voting in the game on than VORP... but until it's added in I just hope.

Anyhow, I've had a few MVPs that I wondered about, but when I went digging to find out it was really a toss up between them and who I thought... I'd bet that there would be a similar situation here if you dug deep and looked at it all objectively.

[Big Wil]

Originally Posted by tysok

MVP is the most valuable player for his team. The voting should be, if you take that guy off the team does that team win as many games? In the case of player A and B they have two driving forces on that team, take one away and they still have a superstar putting up godlike numbers.
If you take player C off that team, do they have a superstar putting up useful numbers? Since he didn't even break the 100 RBI mark, I assume without him the team would have lost far more games than they did.

I can see that argument, I just can't get past player C's team being 18 games out. Usually a player needs monster numbers to get MVP for a team that's not in contention.
Anyway how does the win share stat work?

[Questdog]

VORP overates OBP, as do most Runs Created formulas.

[Big Wil]

Originally Posted by Questdog

VORP overates OBP, as do most Runs Created formulas.

I guess that's what I don't like about VORP deciding the MVP. The Ichiro Suzuki's do not win MVP's for non contending clubs. The Alex Rodriguez's win MVP's no matter how bad there club performs. Derek Jeter is a MVP candidate this year but you can bet if the Yankees don't make the playoffs he doesn't win the award. But David Ortiz may very well win whether Boston makes the playoffs or not.

I would rather have the MVP based on HR, RBI's and SLG pct. With VOPR consideration for playoff teams only.

That's my humble opinion but I think I'm right.

[tysok]

Originally Posted by Big Wil

I can see that argument, I just can't get past player C's team being 18 games out. Usually a player needs monster numbers to get MVP for a team that's not in contention.
Anyway how does the win share stat work?

VORP works off of runs created. A simplistic runs created is (H + BB) * (TB / PA) ... So you figure out how many outs were made in the league, how many "runs created" for the league, and the league average runs per out. Then multiply the league average runs per out by the number of outs the player made... the difference between this and his real runs created gets compared to the mythical replacement level player. Just a simplistic representation of what VORP is.

I don't discout it's usefulness in comparing players. Suzuki is far more valuable a player than the mythical replacement... and VORP would probably reflect that. Whether he would ever lead in VORP I don't know, and how VORP compares histroically to who won the MVP I don't know... I haven't looked at VORP before I saw it in this game.
It's only a stat reflecting this players performance compared to other players at his position compared to the mythical replacement level player though. So you have a VORP leader for C, 1B, 2B etc... and there's nothing to compare these leaders except to look at the base stats again. It doesn't take any defensive play into account either (however flawed the view of defense is or may be).

Win Shares deals with exactly what it says. It divides the teams wins among it's players, therefore showing who was responsible for winning the most games for the team. Each team win is divided into 3 win shares, and could go to 3 different people. But it's not a counting stat.
52% of the teams win shares go to pitching and defense, 48% go to hitting. It's a long complicated formula that takes about every stat, and then some sabermetric stats together through many different levels and spits out a number. That number is his win shares.
If a team wins 90 games there are a total of 270 win shares split among the players.
A typical all star player could be around 20 win shares. MVP type seasons are 30+ and 40+ is god like historic feets. I think Bonds put up the most, 50+ in one year.

Since the point of baseball is to win games the players who put up the largest win share numbers should be the MVP. I can't find my book right now, but if I remember right the MVP chosen was the leader in WS a majority of the time... and when it wasn't it was a travesty of justice.
Some don't like Win Shares because it takes into account runs and RBIs, they think those should be eliminated because it has nothing to do with the player himself but the circumstances he finds himself in. Regardless of what I think of that (which I won't go into that argument here) the point of win shares is to give credit to the player who DID what was DONE, not give credit to what a player COULD do IF he had the chance, or what he MIGHT have done.
Some don't like it because they can't understand the large complicated formulas, and some don't like it because it takes into account defense... which defense is a blurred spot in baseball statistics... so they decide to ignore defense as if it doesn't exist.

Personally I love win shares. It gives an all inclusive look at a player and what he did. It's also comparable over every position and all players, unlike what I described above with VORP. It's not perfect (and nothing ever will be) but, and of course it's only my opinion, it's the best stat there is for the job.
Plus it's a lot of fun to try to program the formulas so it works right.
A plain boring read about what win shares is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win_shares

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Big Wil

I would rather have the MVP based on HR, RBI's and SLG pct. With VORP consideration for playoff teams only.

That's my humble opinion but I think I'm right.

I don't like your opinion.

Your opinion is correct, though.

MVP's are won by RBI's. They don't call them ribeyes for nothing.

Once thing is for sure, I am glad that there is controversy over who should win a MVP, because that happens all the time.

[HolyCow98]

Most of the time I agree with game....but it's cool that I don't always.


There was one that sticks in my mind....


Player A played on a team that ran away with the division and won 113 games
.327/.422/.627 he had 42 HR 122 R and 117 RBI with 17 SB.

Player B played on a team that finished a close 2nd place and won a very respectable 99 wins in their division. He had numbers were .286 /.343/.574. He did have 43 HR 104 R and 131 RBI and 0 SB.

Player A was a 2B/SS and Player B was a LF/RF.

To me they are both canidates and both had great seasons on solid contending teams...but I can only think that the game gave the edge to player B due to 1 extra HR and 14 extra RBI's. I personally think that player A performance led to more runs for his team than Player B did.

The game though chose player B.

[Stu]

I didn't know there was an MVP award in the game.

[bp_]

Originally Posted by Stu

I didn't know there was an MVP award in the game.

pretty cool, huh?