Who should win the MVP?

[BigCountryBumgarner]

I've got two players on my team who are the top two candidates for MVP, but I need some opinions on who should win it.

SS Gustavo Guillen (1x MVP, age 26)
.270, 34 HR, 127 RBI, 150 OPS+, .376 wOBA, .395 OBP, 117 BB, 5 SB, +3.5 ZR, 7.2 WAR

CF Adrian Perez (2x MVP, age 30)
.340, 6 HR, 72 RBI, 133 OPS+, .362 wOBA, .393 OBP, 46 BB, 55 SB, +21.2 ZR, 8.9 WAR

There's a pretty big WAR difference, and Guillen has the clear batting advantage at a premium position, but Perez has elite defense and running.

[Gai1997]

Think its close and can go either way. I would give it to the better defender.

34 homers from a SS is insane.

[chucksabr]

Writers would give it to the guy with 127 RBI.

[harrumph]

Yeah, call me old-fashioned, but I don't think I could give MVP to a guy who hit only six homers.

He's obviously a huge asset, but he's sort of like the best-case version of a common player type. Slap-hitting, slick-fielding outfielders are a dime a dozen. A guy who hits 34 homers and draws 117 walks while playing above-average defense at short? At age 26? I want that guy!

[chucksabr]

Well, .340, 55 steals and gold glove defense in CF ain't chicken feed, either.

If you're looking to win games this year, your CF will probably give you that more than the SS did. If you're looking for future probabilities, you'd probably want the SS. Although, this year's MVP is not about future probabilities, it's about what the guys did this year. And if it comes down to wins, I'll take this year's CF over this year's SS.

All that said, writers will vote for RBI over most over things, because they see it as a team-first stat, and they equate "valuable" with helping the team, not putting up numbers. It's also why pitchers with the most wins tend to win the Cy Youngs rather than the guy with the lowest xFIP, King Felix notwithstanding.

[harrumph]

I'd actually say it's the other way around. 127 RBI isn't predictive of anything—he might get 80 next year, even if he hits well again—but it does describe what he did this year. He got clutch hits with guys on base.

WAR is a fuzzier stat, and more valuable for assessing how valuable somebody's likely to be in the future. A guy who was worth 8.9 WAR probably played better baseball than a guy worth 7.2, but it's not a sure thing, and even if he did, "playing better baseball" doesn't necessarily translate into results. Maybe he stole a lot of bases but didn't score, or hit a lot of singles that didn't amount to anything. Generally, if you look at a guy who put up a big WAR number, you can feel good about his performance going forward; it doesn't always mean he got great results this season (here, I'd be cautious—a low-power outfielder with no plate discipline might crash hard past age 30).

[Tram2Whitaker]

What about runs scored?

[RchW]

For me wOBA suggests the SS but more than 1 win better in WAR favors the CF.

Perez wins a close call.

[OmahaBaseball]

I would vote for Perez, but I think a "real world" vote would likely go the other way.

[Pacoheadley]

I would go Perez, mainly because his wOBA is so close to Guillen's that the large fielding difference matters. Not to mention the SBs, assuming he was efficient with them. Is there a plate appearance difference between them?

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by harrumph

I'd actually say it's the other way around. 127 RBI isn't predictive of anything—he might get 80 next year, even if he hits well again—but it does describe what he did this year. He got clutch hits with guys on base.

WAR is a fuzzier stat, and more valuable for assessing how valuable somebody's likely to be in the future. A guy who was worth 8.9 WAR probably played better baseball than a guy worth 7.2, but it's not a sure thing, and even if he did, "playing better baseball" doesn't necessarily translate into results. Maybe he stole a lot of bases but didn't score, or hit a lot of singles that didn't amount to anything. Generally, if you look at a guy who put up a big WAR number, you can feel good about his performance going forward; it doesn't always mean he got great results this season (here, I'd be cautious—a low-power outfielder with no plate discipline might crash hard past age 30).

I agree with you that RBI is not predictive of what he will get next year, but then, the OP is not asking whether he should keep the guy for next year. He is asking whether he should get the MVP for this year. So that line of discussion is not relevant to his request.

All I was saying was, Adrian Perez was worth more wins than Gustavo Guillen this year, so (purely for the sake of discussion) if I am a sabermetrically-minded GM, and wins for 2014 is my only consideration, I would take 2014 Perez over 2014 Guillen 10 times out of 10, given all other positions have players of equal WAR.

BUT: if I'm an old school baseball writer with an MVP vote, I give the MVP to Guillen because 127 RBI.

[harrumph]

Sorry, I haven't been clear (and I'm not sure I can be clear; this is hard for me to explain, but I'll try).

It's kind of a hair-splitting semantic thing (depends on what we think "value" means), but, in my opinion, WAR doesn't actually describe a player's contributions—it describes the quality of his play (this depends a little on how it's calculated, e.g. bWAR is more results-based and fWAR is more process-based). It's a good tool for GMs (and fantasy baseball GMs) to assess a player and project what he's going to do in the future (also taking into account injury history, age, etc.). It generally doesn't describe what he actually did on the field this year.

For that, there are some good newer metrics (like WPA) but there are also old-fashioned runs and RBIs. It's true that, statistically speaking, there's no such thing as clutch hitting, but be realistic—if you have two guys who had identical seasons (with identical WAR), except that one of them got all his hits with the bases empty and all his strikeouts with men in scoring position and it was vice versa for the other guy, would you really say "well, they essentially had the same season"? You would not. You would say that the guy who always came through in the clutch had an amazing season, and the guy who always choked had, if not a terrible season, a supremely disappointing one.

They're equally skilled, and we expect the same things from them next year, but it's myopic and weird to insist that they had equally good seasons. Luck matters, scoring runs matters, and winning games matters.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by harrumph

Sorry, I haven't been clear (and I'm not sure I can be clear; this is hard for me to explain, but I'll try).

It's kind of a hair-splitting semantic thing (depends on what we think "value" means), but, in my opinion, WAR doesn't actually describe a player's contributions—it describes the quality of his play (this depends a little on how it's calculated, e.g. bWAR is more results-based and fWAR is more process-based). It's a good tool for GMs (and fantasy baseball GMs) to assess a player and project what he's going to do in the future (also taking into account injury history, age, etc.). It generally doesn't describe what he actually did on the field this year.

Other things being equal--something we need to assume given that all we know about the players is laid out in full in the original post--WAR is the best metric we have to describe which of the two players was better this past year. It's the only metric above that even comes close to contemplating the contributions of their entire game, as opposed to one small sliver of their game.

Originally Posted by harrumph

For that, there are some good newer metrics (like WPA) but there are also old-fashioned runs and RBIs. It's true that, statistically speaking, there's no such thing as clutch hitting, but be realistic—if you have two guys who had identical seasons (with identical WAR), except that one of them got all his hits with the bases empty and all his strikeouts with men in scoring position and it was vice versa for the other guy, would you really say "well, they essentially had the same season"? You would not. You would say that the guy who always came through in the clutch had an amazing season, and the guy who always choked had, if not a terrible season, a supremely disappointing one.

They're equally skilled, and we expect the same things from them next year, but it's myopic and weird to insist that they had equally good seasons. Luck matters, scoring runs matters, and winning games matters.

We don't have their WPA available to us, and as you mentioned, runs scored (which we don't even have available to us) and RBI is situation dependent. All we have that comes close to describing their overall game is WAR.

Originally Posted by harrumph

It's true that, statistically speaking, there's no such thing as clutch hitting, but be realistic—if you have two guys who had identical seasons (with identical WAR), except that one of them got all his hits with the bases empty and all his strikeouts with men in scoring position and it was vice versa for the other guy, would you really say "well, they essentially had the same season"? You would not.

Of course I wouldn't, but do you know whether one guy here got ALL of his hits with the bases empty and all his strikeouts with RISP? Do you know anybody who has ever done that? I don't think arguing from extremes is any more relevant than arguing from anecdote.

Originally Posted by harrumph

You would say that the guy who always came through in the clutch had an amazing season, and the guy who always choked had, if not a terrible season, a supremely disappointing one.

We don't have any of that information available to us. All we have available is the information in the OP.

Originally Posted by harrumph

They're equally skilled, and we expect the same things from them next year, but it's myopic and weird to insist that they had equally good seasons. Luck matters, scoring runs matters, and winning games matters.

I'm not arguing they had equally good seasons. I'm arguing that Perez had a better season, based on his WAR.

Just to be straight, I am not saying that WAR is the end all/be all and that all other metrics should be discarded. What I am saying is of the information we have been given, WAR is the best metric available to assess their 2014 seasons, future notwithstanding (or relevant).

[BigCountryBumgarner]

Thanks all for your input. To answer some questions:

Perez: 115 R, 3.1 WPA, .414!! RISP
Guillen: 98 R, 2.2 WPA, .335 RISP

Guillen batted third/fourth behind elite contact hitters like Perez and my leadoff hitter thoughout the entire season, so I think it's safe to say he had more RBI opportunities. They also had basically the same PAs.

[harrumph]

Ha, okay, I tip my cap to Mr. Perez.

[Tram2Whitaker]

I vote Perez as well

[hfield007]

Perez


defense is far too undervalued. Although a 34 HR hitting shortstop is amazing.

[DustinthePOWERHOUSE]

Originally Posted by BigCountryBumgarner

I've got two players on my team who are the top two candidates for MVP, but I need some opinions on who should win it.

SS Gustavo Guillen (1x MVP, age 26)
.270, 34 HR, 127 RBI, 150 OPS+, .376 wOBA, .395 OBP, 117 BB, 5 SB, +3.5 ZR, 7.2 WAR

CF Adrian Perez (2x MVP, age 30)
.340, 6 HR, 72 RBI, 133 OPS+, .362 wOBA, .393 OBP, 46 BB, 55 SB, +21.2 ZR, 8.9 WAR

There's a pretty big WAR difference, and Guillen has the clear batting advantage at a premium position, but Perez has elite defense and running.

Perez absolutely. No way should a MVP hit .270 regardless of what position he plays. And a lot of people are saying 34 home runs is insane for a SS, but 55 steals and a 21.2 ZR for a CF is pretty incredible in itself AND add the .340 average.

I get the whole SS position deflates numbers, but those numbers aren't award winning. Perez's average, stolen bases and supreme defense talent is the reason he should win the MVP. Oh and an 8.9WAR is awesome as well. (Just another add-on)

[harrumph]

Originally Posted by DustinthePOWERHOUSE

No way should a MVP hit .270 regardless of what position he plays.

Johnny Bench and Yogi Berra (not to mention a bunch of guys who aren't in the Hall of Fame, like Roger Maris) beg to differ. There's more than one way to get on base—Harmon Killebrew hit .276 in his MVP year but led the league in OBP with 145 walks. Guillen's 117 walks is nothing to sneeze at either, although, yes, Perez's overall performance is probably better.

[DustinthePOWERHOUSE]

Originally Posted by harrumph

Johnny Bench and Yogi Berra (not to mention a bunch of guys who aren't in the Hall of Fame, like Roger Maris) beg to differ. There's more than one way to get on base—Harmon Killebrew hit .276 in his MVP year but led the league in OBP with 145 walks. Guillen's 117 walks is nothing to sneeze at either, although, yes, Perez's overall performance is probably better.

Bench's second MVP was bogus., Carlton absolutely should've beaten him and if not Carlton Billy Williams has a serious case. His first MVP he was very close to hitting .300, .290 is alright I guess but .276 is average hitting.

Yogi hit +.300 in 2 out of the three. In the 1955 MVP race Kaline posted extremelly similar numbers (with a .340 avg) in MORE games with a better WAR by almost 4! and he didn't win...

Killebrew is your best case so far, and yet I still don't know if he was the right choice.

Let's be realistic here...and go by the Scouting ratings. A .270 hitter is a below average hitter, and yes I know it's based off positions and yes I understand the difference between average hitters and low average/power hitters. In order to compensate that low average hitters tend to have a skill somewhere else like Killebrew did with his home runs. Which in the 1969 MVP season he definitely demonstrated. BUT between him and Reggie Jackson their numbers are extremely similar and both averages are low. As opposed to:

Frank Howard: 48 HR 111RBI .296 AVG .402OBP .574SLG 9.2WAR 166 hits
Frank Robinson: 32HR 100RBI .308AVG .415OBP .540SLG 7.5WAR
166 hits

I don't know, honestly, I know who you'd choose, but to me with the numbers being very similar I don;t know who would win.