American League 2006 MVP Poll - Page 4

KurtBevacqua · 10-02-2006, 11:54 AM

Too bad the Indians were so bad, otherwise we'd be seriously talking about Grady Sizemore. 162 games played, 22 steals, 28 homers, 92 extra base hits (leading the league), 134 runs scored (also leading the league). Many guys have won the MVP with considerably poorer seasons.

andymac · 10-02-2006, 12:27 PM

My ranking of the 15 in this poll.

1. Johan Santana
2. Derek Jeter
3. Joe Mauer
4. Roy Halladay
5. Jermaine Dye
6. Miguel Tejada
7. Grady Sizemore
8. Travis Hafner
9. Jonathan Papelbon
10. Michael Young
11. Francisco Rodriguez
12. Ichiro Suzuki
13. David Ortiz
14. Nick Swisher
15. Curtis Granderson

JDOldSchool · 10-02-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andymac

My ranking of the 15 in this poll.

1. Johan Santana
2. Derek Jeter
3. Joe Mauer
4. Roy Halladay
5. Jermaine Dye
6. Miguel Tejada
7. Grady Sizemore
8. Jonathan Papelbon
9. Michael Young
10. Francisco Rodriguez
11. Ichiro Suzuki
12. David Ortiz
13. Nick Swisher
14. Travis Hafner
15. Curtis Granderson

This list confuses me greatly. I understand the winner argument: Hard to have a guy on a bad team as MVP over someone on a contending team. But that doesn't explain Tejada, Papelbon, Young, Ichiro over Hafner. That just doesn't make any sense. Tejada was considerably worse than Hafner, Young was considerably worse than Tejada. Papelbon is a closer on a non-contending team. Ichiro is a glorified singles hitter on a last-place team. Hafner needs to be moved up about 10 spots.

andymac · 10-02-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDOldSchool

This list confuses me greatly. I understand the winner argument: Hard to have a guy on a bad team as MVP over someone on a contending team. But that doesn't explain Tejada, Papelbon, Young, Ichiro over Hafner. That just doesn't make any sense. Tejada was considerably worse than Hafner, Young was considerably worse than Tejada. Papelbon is a closer on a non-contending team. Ichiro is a glorified singles hitter on a last-place team. Hafner needs to be moved up about 10 spots.

Tejada, Young, and Ichiro all make contributions to their team while they are in the field as well as at the plate. Papelbon prevented more runs than Hafner created.

Y0DA55 · 10-02-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andymac

Papelbon prevented more runs than Hafner created.

I don't agree with this at all.

andymac · 10-02-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Y0DA55

I don't agree with this at all.

*Edit* - Just realized I made a mistype in my spreadsheet. Will update my list above.

swampdragon · 10-02-2006, 12:45 PM

This is going to be divided between the writers who will want to give the award to Jeter, partially as a career award, and those who actually sit down and analyze all the stats, some of whom may go with Jeter anyway. Since no one has overwhelming credentials, Jeter will win.

andymac · 10-02-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampdragon

This is going to be divided between the writers who will want to give the award to Jeter, partially as a career award, and those who actually sit down and analyze all the stats, some of whom may go with Jeter anyway. Since no one has overwhelming credentials, Jeter will win.

I agree, and would be fine with it. I think Santana has been the most valuable player but Jeter the most valuable non-pitcher. The pitchers have the Cy Young ...I honestly would be completely fine with it if they made pitchers ineligible for the MVP award.

SWardle · 10-02-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andymac

Papelbon prevented more runs than Hafner created.

I don't fully understand PRAA and PRAR and would like someone to explain something to me. How exactly is it calculated and is the end result based on an average number of innings? Like, say is a 42 PRAA equal to being 42 runs above average per every 100 innings? Or does that mean you were 42 runs above average for the innings you pitched?

If it's the latter I have to strongly diagree with the outcome. If Papelbon was 41 runs above averages for the innings he pitched then that would put the average closer/reliever at a 6.7 ERA. That is absurd.

JDOldSchool · 10-02-2006, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andymac

Tejada, Young, and Ichiro all make contributions to their team while they are in the field as well as at the plate. Papelbon prevented more runs than Hafner created.

But Hafner's contributions at the plate were much, much higher than any of those 3.

andymac · 10-02-2006, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDOldSchool

But Hafner's contributions at the plate were much, much higher than any of those 3.

Those players' contributions in the field were much, much higher than Hafner's.

andymac · 10-02-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWardle

I don't fully understand PRAA and PRAR and would like someone to explain something to me. How exactly is it calculated and is the end result based on an average number of innings? Like, say is a 42 PRAA equal to being 42 runs above average per every 100 innings? Or does that mean you were 42 runs above average for the innings you pitched?

If it's the latter I have to strongly diagree with the outcome. If Papelbon was 41 runs above averages for the innings he pitched then that would put the average closer/reliever at a 6.7 ERA. That is absurd.

I believe they are based on an XIP (expected innings pitched) calculation. Which, I believe, is an adjustment to the innings pitched of that player based on the importance of the innings which they pitched. Papelbon's adjustment moved him from 68.3 IP to 107.9. So, the 41 PRAR is based on the 107.9.

So, if he allowed 7 ER in 68.3, it is adusted to 11 in 107.9. Add 41 to the 11 and you have 52 ER in 107.9 innings being average...or a 4.33 E.R.A.

SWardle · 10-02-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andymac

I believe they are based on an XIP (expected innings pitched) calculation. Which, I believe, is an adjustment to the innings pitched of that player based on the importance of the innings which they pitched. Papelbon's adjustment moved him from 68.3 IP to 107.9. So, the 41 PRAR is based on the 107.9.

So, if he allowed 7 ER in 68.3, it is adusted to 11 in 107.9. Add 41 to the 11 and you have 52 ER in 107.9 innings being average...or a 4.33 E.R.A.

That makes more sense with the calculation. However, since Papelbon didn't pitch 107.9 innings and only pitched 64% of that total, wouldn't hit true runs above average only be 26? If he pitched the full 107.9 then you get 41, right? But he didn't pitch that many. He pitched 68.3... so, to me, it'd seem like he should only get credit for what he actually pitched. That'd put him at 26.24 runs above average.

andymac · 10-02-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWardle

That makes more sense with the calculation. However, since Papelbon didn't pitch 107.9 innings and only pitched 64% of that total, wouldn't hit true runs above average only be 26? If he pitched the full 107.9 then you get 41, right? But he didn't pitch that many. He pitched 68.3... so, to me, it'd seem like he should only get credit for what he actually pitched. That'd put him at 26.24 runs above average.

If you want it without any leverage adjustment for the importance of the innings, I believe you are correct.

mikev · 10-02-2006, 01:56 PM

I'd be curious to see how they determine importance of innings. I don't really see a way that something like that could be determined without being subjective.

SWardle · 10-02-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andymac

If you want it without any leverage adjustment for the importance of the innings, I believe you are correct.

Well, I think it should be equalized for it to be a good statistic to base the best pitcher on much less base an entire MVP race on. I mean, according to PRAA, Papelbon would be a better MVP candidate than Santana if you use the "he prevented more runs than Santana using PRAA/PRAR".

Would anyone honestly take a closer over a good starting pitcher? I wouldn't. I want the guy who's going to toss 200 good innings over a guy who's going to toss 60. Yet, accodring to PRAA, Papelbon is better if you use the "he prevented more runs" line of reasoning. I don't know. I don't think PRAA would be bad if you were comparing closers to closers, relievers to relievers and starters to starters. But it clearly (IMO) does not work with cross position evaluations.

imation · 10-02-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

I'd be curious to see how they determine importance of innings. I don't really see a way that something like that could be determined without being subjective.

Easy the closer you get to the last inning of the game the higher the inning is on the leverage factor.

mikev · 10-02-2006, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imation

Easy the closer you get to the last inning of the game the higher the inning is on the leverage factor.

Starter goes 7 innings, gets up in the 8th, then allows 2 singles and a walk. Bases loaded, 0 out. The team is up by 3, so the go ahead run has just come to the plate.

Reliever A comes in and gets a strikeout and an inning-ending double play.

In the 9th, Reliever B comes in and gets 3 quick outs to preserve the 3 run win and get the save.

Was Reliever A's inning more important than Reliever B's?

imation · 10-02-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

Starter goes 7 innings, gets up in the 8th, then allows 2 singles and a walk. Bases loaded, 0 out. The team is up by 3, so the go ahead run has just come to the plate.

Reliever A comes in and gets a strikeout and an inning-ending double play.

In the 9th, Reliever B comes in and gets 3 quick outs to preserve the 3 run win and get the save.

Was Reliever A's inning more important than Reliever B's?

Reliever B's inning was more important, but Reliever A's situation was more important.

SWardle · 10-02-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

Starter goes 7 innings, gets up in the 8th, then allows 2 singles and a walk. Bases loaded, 0 out. The team is up by 3, so the go ahead run has just come to the plate.

Reliever A comes in and gets a strikeout and an inning-ending double play.

In the 9th, Reliever B comes in and gets 3 quick outs to preserve the 3 run win and get the save.

Was Reliever A's inning more important than Reliever B's?

Were either of their innings more important than the starter's? I mean, without the starter going seven strong there's no need for reliever A or B. To me, the most important pitcher in that scenario is the starter, then reliever A followed by reliever B.

In every situation, IMO, the starter is the most important pitcher. They can piss away games long before a reliever even gets a chance to do so.

View Poll Results: Who da man?
Miguel Tejada	0	0%
David Ortiz	7	11.86%
Jonathan Papelbon	0	0%
Jermaine Dye	2	3.39%
Grady Sizemore	2	3.39%
Travis Hafner	7	11.86%
Curtis Granderson	1	1.69%
Francisco Rodriguez	0	0%
Johan Santana	5	8.47%
Joe Mauer	15	25.42%
Derek Jeter	18	30.51%
Nick Swisher	1	1.69%
Ichiro Suzuki	0	0%
Michael Young	0	0%
Roy Halladay	1	1.69%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

10-02-2006, 11:54 AM	#61
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,968	Too bad the Indians were so bad, otherwise we'd be seriously talking about Grady Sizemore. 162 games played, 22 steals, 28 homers, 92 extra base hits (leading the league), 134 runs scored (also leading the league). Many guys have won the MVP with considerably poorer seasons. __________________ "The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man" - William Graham Sumner

10-02-2006, 12:27 PM	#62
andymac Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Effingham, IL Posts: 5,725	My ranking of the 15 in this poll. 1. Johan Santana 2. Derek Jeter 3. Joe Mauer 4. Roy Halladay 5. Jermaine Dye 6. Miguel Tejada 7. Grady Sizemore 8. Travis Hafner 9. Jonathan Papelbon 10. Michael Young 11. Francisco Rodriguez 12. Ichiro Suzuki 13. David Ortiz 14. Nick Swisher 15. Curtis Granderson __________________ June Madness: Links FTB: andymac Last edited by andymac; 10-02-2006 at 12:47 PM.

10-02-2006, 12:45 PM	#67
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,509	This is going to be divided between the writers who will want to give the award to Jeter, partially as a career award, and those who actually sit down and analyze all the stats, some of whom may go with Jeter anyway. Since no one has overwhelming credentials, Jeter will win. __________________ “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." -- C.S. Lewis

10-02-2006, 01:56 PM	#75
mikev Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 4,014	I'd be curious to see how they determine importance of innings. I don't really see a way that something like that could be determined without being subjective. __________________ Global Unified Baseball Association - Vice Commish and Oakland Oaks GM