American League 2006 MVP Poll

[imation]

Originally Posted by SWardle

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.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=5471

"A great closer is as valuable as all but the very best starters, once we properly account for the effects of leverage. Papelbon’s WXRL this year is 6.6, which is higher than that of any starter not named Johan Santana (6.7). (Note that we call this statistic SNLVAR for starters. But it measures the same thing--wins added above replacement--and is measured in essentially the same way.)"

[mikev]

Originally Posted by imation

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

I disagree. If Reliever A doesn't get out of that inning, Reliever B's inning is either pointless or unnecessary. That would make A's inning more important.

[imation]

Originally Posted by mikev

I disagree. If Reliever A doesn't get out of that inning, Reliever B's inning is either pointless or unnecessary. That would make A's inning more important.

But if the team scored than your team has 6 outs to catch up instead of just 3.

[SWardle]

Originally Posted by imation

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=5471

"A great closer is as valuable as all but the very best starters, once we properly account for the effects of leverage. Papelbon’s WXRL this year is 6.6, which is higher than that of any starter not named Johan Santana (6.7). (Note that we call this statistic SNLVAR for starters. But it measures the same thing--wins added above replacement--and is measured in essentially the same way.)"

I think that's a bunch of bulls---, personally. It's funny that a site like that which doesn't believe clutch exists and posters around here that don't believe in clutch would believe that somehow, all of a sudden, players hit better all because it's the 9th inning. I mean, the starter faces the same lineup, right? In fact, the starter faces the entire lineup... there's no guarantee the closer will even _face_ the 3-4-5 hitters. He could come in and face the 7-8-9 hitters and that's it.

Look at how many opportunities the starter has to blow the game. Let's say he goes 7 innings. That's 78% of the outs and the game. If he throws a turd on the wall and get blasted in any of those innings then the need for a Papelbon goes down to nil. Papelbon is a total non-factor. Not to mention that winning and losing for 78% of the game rests on the shoulder of your starting pitcher and your offense. The closer comes in and throws 11% of the game.

Now, barring some mythical clutch or "players automatically hit 7x better in the ninth inning" then how is the closers _sole_ ninth inning performance anywhere near as important as the 7 innings the starter put in to make that save even a possibility?

[imation]

Originally Posted by SWardle

I think that's a bunch of bulls---, personally. It's funny that a site like that which doesn't believe clutch exists and posters around here that don't believe in clutch would believe that somehow, all of a sudden, players hit better all because it's the 9th inning. I mean, the starter faces the same lineup, right? In fact, the starter faces the entire lineup... there's no guarantee the closer will even _face_ the 3-4-5 hitters. He could come in and face the 7-8-9 hitters and that's it.

Look at how many opportunities the starter has to blow the game. Let's say he goes 7 innings. That's 78% of the outs and the game. If he throws a turd on the wall and get blasted in any of those innings then the need for a Papelbon goes down to nil. Papelbon is a total non-factor. Not to mention that winning and losing for 78% of the game rests on the shoulder of your starting pitcher and your offense. The closer comes in and throws 11% of the game.

Now, barring some mythical clutch or "players automatically hit 7x better in the ninth inning" then how is the closers _sole_ ninth inning performance anywhere near as important as the 7 innings the starter put in to make that save even a possibility?

Not sure you got the point.

In the first inning you have 27 outs to score runs. So if the team scored 3 runs before you get up to bat, you still have 27 outs to make up for that. IF the team goes up 3 runs in the 9th inning, you only have 3 more outs to make up for it. That is the point of higher leverage.

[SWardle]

Originally Posted by imation

Not sure you got the point.

In the first inning you have 27 outs to score runs. So if the team scored 3 runs before you get up to bat, you still have 27 outs to make up for that. IF the team goes up 3 runs in the 9th inning, you only have 3 more outs to make up for it. That is the point of higher leverage.

That still doesn't make a closer more valuable than a starter, IMO. If that's the case why not just throw all of your best starting arms in as closers? Why not drop Big Unit in the closers role? Throw all of your scrubs in the rotation because hey, if they get blasted and give up 5 runs we have x-number outs to get those runs back versus the 3 we have in the 9th.

There's absolutely no way I'd take a Papelbon over a good starter. There's just simply no way. I'm sure Santana could throw 60 gold innings as a closer too. But why would you purposely take 60 innings from him when you can get 200?

When I look at a closer I see a guy who right off the bat is 1/3rd of a starters value because of the innings pitched difference. Now, a Papelbon with his performance in those 60 innings can certainly trump bad starters because I'd take 60 great innings over 200 bad ones.

But if I had to choose between 200 3.50 ERA innings and Paplebon's 60? I take the 200.

[imation]

Originally Posted by SWardle

That still doesn't make a closer more valuable than a starter, IMO. If that's the case why not just throw all of your best starting arms in as closers? Why not drop Big Unit in the closers role? Throw all of your scrubs in the rotation because hey, if they get blasted and give up 5 runs we have x-number outs to get those runs back versus the 3 we have in the 9th.

There's absolutely no way I'd take a Papelbon over a good starter. There's just simply no way. I'm sure Santana could throw 60 gold innings as a closer too. But why would you purposely take 60 innings from him when you can get 200?

When I look at a closer I see a guy who right off the bat is 1/3rd of a starters value because of the innings pitched difference. Now, a Papelbon with his performance in those 60 innings can certainly trump bad starters because I'd take 60 great innings over 200 bad ones.

But if I had to choose between 200 3.50 ERA innings and Paplebon's 60? I take the 200.

Right and you would be making the wrong decision based on statistics. The article explained there were only 9 SP's better than Papelbon. So go ahead an make the wrong decision.

Billy Beane talked last year about building his rotation from the bullpen up. This is what he was referring to.

[SWardle]

Originally Posted by imation

Right and you would be making the wrong decision based on statistics. The article explained there were only 9 SP's better than Papelbon. So go ahead an make the wrong decision.

Billy Beane talked last year about building his rotation from the bullpen up. This is what he was referring to.

Heh, says you and some article. There is absolutely no way 60 innings is better for a team than 200 IP. We're talking 15% of your total innings pitched as a team compared to 4%.

[andymac]

I believe that BP actually uses decisions as one of the basis for their XIP.

In fact, here is the glossary definition from the website.

Adjusted Innings Pitched; used for the PRAA and PRAR statistics. There are two separate adjustments:

1) Decisions. Innings are redistributed among the members of the team to favor those who took part in more decisions (wins, losses, and saves) than their innings alone would lead you to expect. The main incentive was to do a better job recognizing the value of closers than a simple runs above average approach would permit. XIPA for the team, after this adjustment, will equal team innings. First, adjust the wins and saves; let X = (team wins) / (team wins + saves). Multiply that by individual (wins + saves) to get an adjusted win total. Add losses. Multiply by team innings divided by team wins and losses.

2) Pitcher/fielder share. When I do the pitch/field breakdown for individuals, one of the stats that gets separated is innings. If an individual pitcher has more pitcher-specific innings than an average pitcher with the same total innings would have, than the difference is added to his XIPA. If a pitcher has fewer than average, the difference is subtracted. This creates a deliberate bias in favor of pitchers who are more independent of their fielders (the strikeout pitchers, basically), and against those who are highly dependent on their defenses (the Tommy John types).

[imation]

Originally Posted by SWardle

Heh, says you and some article. There is absolutely no way 60 innings is better for a team than 200 IP. We're talking 15% of your total innings pitched as a team compared to 4%.

The article actually produced statst that backed up its findings. You have nothing more than what you think and don't show any statistics to show that. If you have one of the best 9 SP's than yes you can make that statement.

[MuertoDesagradecido]

There is an interesting argument for Papelbon. I disagree with it, but it's very interesting.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Jonzard

Not including Morneau is pretty bad. Especially with Curtis Granderson on here. I cannot bring myself to vote on this list.

I didn't have any problem leaving the Twins third best player off the MVP list for the whole league.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by sixfour210

I'm with Jonzard...I hadn't even realized Granderson was picked over Morneau.

He wasn't. And picking one player from the Tigers fine year wasn't any easy task. Really a team effort on their part.

[marc]

Nick Swisher all the way.

[mikev]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

I didn't have any problem leaving the Twins third best player off the MVP list for the whole league.

Then why did you leave the best player from the A's off?

[imation]

Originally Posted by mikev

Then why did you leave the best player from the A's off?

Jermaine Dye is up there.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by mikev

Then why did you leave the best player from the A's off?

He didn't.

:mvpisntjustanoffensiveaward:

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by bigMatt

How does Justin Morneau miss your list? His season is MVP calibre, and is substantially better than several listed.

Read Gale Sayer's autobiography.

[BlackHatCowboy]

Morneau.

[mikev]

Originally Posted by andymac

He didn't.

:mvpisntjustanoffensiveaward:

Does Swisher's defense make up for 14 points of VORP? I'm betting that it doesn't.