Ryan Zimmerman is your MVP

[craftysouthpaw]

There have been plenty of instances where the best player wasn't the most valuable player.

Barry Bonds finished 2nd in MVP voting when he was clearly the best player in the league in 1991. Was Terry Pendleton's .316-22-86 really better than Bonds's .292-25-116 (with 43 stolen bases)? No.

Logic does NOT dictate that the best player is the most valuable. Pendleton was certainly more valuable to the Braves than Bonds was to the Pirates. With Pendleton, the Braves won their division by 1 game. With Bonds, the Pirates won their division by 14 games.

Ted Williams won the Triple Crown and didn't win the MVP. Twice. The first time he won the MVP (in 1946), he didn't lead the league in ANY of the Triple Crown categories. So why did he win the MVP in 1946, but not in any of the years he won the Triple Crown? The Red Sox won the pennant in 1946, but finished 2nd and 3rd during his Triple Crown years.


David

Just because something happened doesn't mean it should have. Your examples just illustrate my point about how awful the voting for those awards have often been. Pendleton over Bonds was a horrible choice. And I am a Braves fan. By your definition of value, every player on the '91 Braves that was worth one win or more was more valuable than Barry Bonds. Place in standings should have nothing to do with value.

If we both had 23 identical players and I had the 1991 Bonds and you had the 1991 Pendleton, my team would win over 162 games every single time.

Interesting take here:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/why-do-we-care

 

[darocker80]

Never thought I'd see a post like this without me making it.

Unfortunately, won't happen until the Nats are at least division/WC contenders.

Best defensive NL 3rd baseman, Yes. Best offensive NL 3rd baseman, Yes. But you need national exposure on a contending team to win anymore, and the only reason the Nats got that this year is Strasburg.

Zim had his hit streak last year, along with better numbers, Silver Slugger and Gold Glove, and got only 2 10th place votes.

I'm hoping more than most, just isn't going to happen.

At this rate he'll have the same home runs with 10 higher batting average points and higher OBP. Better offensive numbers in 09 if he keeps it up?

 

[RZimm11]

Never thought I'd see a post like this without me making it.

Unfortunately, won't happen until the Nats are at least division/WC contenders.

Best defensive NL 3rd baseman, Yes. Best offensive NL 3rd baseman, Yes. But you need national exposure on a contending team to win anymore, and the only reason the Nats got that this year is Strasburg.

Zim had his hit streak last year, along with better numbers, Silver Slugger and Gold Glove, and got only 2 10th place votes.

I'm hoping more than most, just isn't going to happen.

At this rate he'll have the same home runs with 10 higher batting average points and higher OBP. Better offensive numbers in 09 if he keeps it up?

I'll admit I didn't actually look up all the numbers before I posted. Just not drastically improved from last season. He'll probably get the SS and GG again.

My main point was that he did all this same stuff last year and didn't even get more than a 10th place vote. He's not going to jump from national obscurity to overtake Pujols' popularity with the voters, or a breakout year from Votto because of the team he' on.

Heck, Chipper may get more MVP votes as a 3rd baseman just because it might be the end of his career. You never what all the voters are thinking.

 

[jbhofmann]

Where are the Nat's with Zim? 20 games back/last in the divison.
Where would the Nat's be without him? Does it matter?

 

[SamHell]

They should just make it a Position Player of the Year award. The actual criteria given to the voters is too vague and what guidance there is voters don't use.

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

Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

1. Actual value of a player to his team? Using this, I could argue that Martin Prado has been more valuable this year to the Braves than Robinson Cano to the Yankees. Without Prado, the Braves are in 3rd or 4th place. Take Cano from the Yankees? I think they are still at least the wildcard.
2. Number of games played. Seems to knock out starting pitchers and relievers but Willie Hernandez won it in 84. George Brett won it in 80 even though he only played in 117 of 162 games.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort? Bonds and Cobb should have never won it.

 

[KOBEARODLT]

There have been plenty of instances where the best player wasn't the most valuable player.

Barry Bonds finished 2nd in MVP voting when he was clearly the best player in the league in 1991. Was Terry Pendleton's .316-22-86 really better than Bonds's .292-25-116 (with 43 stolen bases)? No.

Logic does NOT dictate that the best player is the most valuable. Pendleton was certainly more valuable to the Braves than Bonds was to the Pirates. With Pendleton, the Braves won their division by 1 game. With Bonds, the Pirates won their division by 14 games.

Ted Williams won the Triple Crown and didn't win the MVP. Twice. The first time he won the MVP (in 1946), he didn't lead the league in ANY of the Triple Crown categories. So why did he win the MVP in 1946, but not in any of the years he won the Triple Crown? The Red Sox won the pennant in 1946, but finished 2nd and 3rd during his Triple Crown years.


David

only thing is..those votes were wrong, but pujols and votto over zimmerman would not be, its pretty clear cut that they are both far beyond zimmerman

 

[leatherman]

In 1991, Pendleton was more valuable to the Braves than Bonds was to the Pirates. Forget about WAR and other fictitious constructs that aim to define a value as to the player's absolute contribution to a team's win total. They are merely approximations and an attempt to quantify something that honestly isn't quantifiable.

Let's say PLAYER A hits .350 with 50 HRs and 140 RBIs in a season. However, with RISP and 2 outs in the 9th inning when his team trailed by one run, he was 1-25 for the year.

PLAYER B (who plays the same position as PLAYER A) hits .290 with 30 HRs and 100 RBIs in the same season. When his team trails by a run with RISP and 2 outs in the 9 inning, he was 13-25.

Which player was more valuable? PLAYER A would have a higher WAR value, for sure.

What if PLAYER A is a jerk in the clubhouse and creates a hostile attitude which results in a fight that injures another player? What if PLAYER B takes his teammates to the batting cage and works with them on their hitting, much like Tony Gwynn did with Greg Vaughn? Isn't there immeasurable value in both those instances?

What about a catcher whose pitchers have an ERA of 2.00 when he catches 3/4 of the time, vs another catcher on the team whose pitchers have a 5.00 ERA when he catches 1/4 of the time? Isn't there value there in that ability? How do you compare that to a first baseman with far superior hitting numbers? WAR doesn't consider such a thing.

You said "Logic dictates the best player is also the most valuable player" and that statement is simply wrong. The BBWAA voting for MVP doesn't support or reject your statement. There are far more considerations than "who is the best player on the field" that goes into determining a player's overall value.

 

[craftysouthpaw]

In 1991, Pendleton was more valuable to the Braves than Bonds was to the Pirates. Forget about WAR and other fictitious constructs that aim to define a value as to the player's absolute contribution to a team's win total. They are merely approximations and an attempt to quantify something that honestly isn't quantifiable.

Let's say PLAYER A hits .350 with 50 HRs and 140 RBIs in a season. However, with RISP and 2 outs in the 9th inning when his team trailed by one run, he was 1-25 for the year.

PLAYER B (who plays the same position as PLAYER A) hits .290 with 30 HRs and 100 RBIs in the same season. When his team trails by a run with RISP and 2 outs in the 9 inning, he was 13-25.

Which player was more valuable? PLAYER A would have a higher WAR value, for sure.

What if PLAYER A is a jerk in the clubhouse and creates a hostile attitude which results in a fight that injures another player? What if PLAYER B takes his teammates to the batting cage and works with them on their hitting, much like Tony Gwynn did with Greg Vaughn? Isn't there immeasurable value in both those instances?

What about a catcher whose pitchers have an ERA of 2.00 when he catches 3/4 of the time, vs another catcher on the team whose pitchers have a 5.00 ERA when he catches 1/4 of the time? Isn't there value there in that ability? How do you compare that to a first baseman with far superior hitting numbers? WAR doesn't consider such a thing.

You said "Logic dictates the best player is also the most valuable player" and that statement is simply wrong. The BBWAA voting for MVP doesn't support or reject your statement. There are far more considerations than "who is the best player on the field" that goes into determining a player's overall value.



"There are far more considerations than "who is the best player on the field" that goes into determining a player's overall value."

Really? To me, that is like saying there are far more considerations than quantity when determining if 8 apples is more than 3 apples. And I don't care that the BBWAA voting doesn't support my statements considering part of my entire point is that the BBWAA voting has often been garbage.

And WAR a fictitious construct? Geez.

Stats like WAR and VORP and all the others that really smart people have devoted their lives to have improved our understanding of value tremendously. And their entire point is to do so objectively and yes, quantifiably.

But let's play the 1991 game attempting to get to the crux of your outlandish example. Seriously, the chances of a guy hitting .350 with 50 bombs (I omit RBI's because they are basically worthless when evaluating a player. Hopefully, we have emerged from the dark ages there) going 1 for 25 in that scenario are basically zero and it is a straw man argument. But anyway:

Pendleton with RISP .320/.368/.509
Bonds with RISP .345/.471/.588

Pendleton with men on .318/.361/.482
Bonds with men on .327/.448/.610

Pendleton with 2 outs, RISP .281/.359/.439
Bonds with 2 outs, RISP .312/.500/.506

Pendleton - Late & Close .341/.392/.466
Bonds - Late & Close .338/.450/.538

Anyway you slice it, Bonds was significantly better. So if Bonds played like Pendleton and vice versa, the Braves would have certainly won their division by more than 1 game and the Pirates would have won by less. So since Pendleton didn't contribute to winning games as much as Bonds did, he gets rewarded in your eyes since it made the race closer than it would have if he performed as well as Bonds. The fictional WAR construct has Bonds at 8.3 and Pendleton at 6.1 in case you're interested.

Also, numerous studies have proven that catchers have basically no impact on the ERA of a pitching staff. I could quote all of that here too but I recommend a quick Google. So the creature of an ERA-reducing catcher is a mythical as a clutch hitter.

If you were to ask any of the guys that do this for a living that are way smarter than I will ever be (Neyer, Law, the guys at BP/Fangraphs/Hardball, Posnanski, Bill James, Theo Epstein, etc.), I guarantee you every single one of them will say Bonds was more valuable that year in a landslide. For what that is worth.

I'm obviously not going to change your mind and vice versa and that is one of the things that make this game great. I just tend to think we should evaluate the game as objectively as possible instead of relying on what our gut tells us or with historical methods that really don't correlate to value or winning. Maybe a perfect measure of value will be created that refutes WAR/VORP/Win Shares, etc. and if so, I will gladly change my mind and agree Pendleton deserved the MVP.

 

[KOBEARODLT]

In 1991, Pendleton was more valuable to the Braves than Bonds was to the Pirates. Forget about WAR and other fictitious constructs that aim to define a value as to the player's absolute contribution to a team's win total. They are merely approximations and an attempt to quantify something that honestly isn't quantifiable.

Let's say PLAYER A hits .350 with 50 HRs and 140 RBIs in a season. However, with RISP and 2 outs in the 9th inning when his team trailed by one run, he was 1-25 for the year.

PLAYER B (who plays the same position as PLAYER A) hits .290 with 30 HRs and 100 RBIs in the same season. When his team trails by a run with RISP and 2 outs in the 9 inning, he was 13-25.

Which player was more valuable? PLAYER A would have a higher WAR value, for sure.

What if PLAYER A is a jerk in the clubhouse and creates a hostile attitude which results in a fight that injures another player? What if PLAYER B takes his teammates to the batting cage and works with them on their hitting, much like Tony Gwynn did with Greg Vaughn? Isn't there immeasurable value in both those instances?

What about a catcher whose pitchers have an ERA of 2.00 when he catches 3/4 of the time, vs another catcher on the team whose pitchers have a 5.00 ERA when he catches 1/4 of the time? Isn't there value there in that ability? How do you compare that to a first baseman with far superior hitting numbers? WAR doesn't consider such a thing.

You said "Logic dictates the best player is also the most valuable player" and that statement is simply wrong. The BBWAA voting for MVP doesn't support or reject your statement. There are far more considerations than "who is the best player on the field" that goes into determining a player's overall value.



"There are far more considerations than "who is the best player on the field" that goes into determining a player's overall value."

Really? To me, that is like saying there are far more considerations than quantity when determining if 8 apples is more than 3 apples. And I don't care that the BBWAA voting doesn't support my statements considering part of my entire point is that the BBWAA voting has often been garbage.

And WAR a fictitious construct? Geez.

Stats like WAR and VORP and all the others that really smart people have devoted their lives to have improved our understanding of value tremendously. And their entire point is to do so objectively and yes, quantifiably.

But let's play the 1991 game attempting to get to the crux of your outlandish example. Seriously, the chances of a guy hitting .350 with 50 bombs (I omit RBI's because they are basically worthless when evaluating a player. Hopefully, we have emerged from the dark ages there) going 1 for 25 in that scenario are basically zero and it is a straw man argument. But anyway:

Pendleton with RISP .320/.368/.509
Bonds with RISP .345/.471/.588

Pendleton with men on .318/.361/.482
Bonds with men on .327/.448/.610

Pendleton with 2 outs, RISP .281/.359/.439
Bonds with 2 outs, RISP .312/.500/.506

Pendleton - Late & Close .341/.392/.466
Bonds - Late & Close .338/.450/.538

Anyway you slice it, Bonds was significantly better. So if Bonds played like Pendleton and vice versa, the Braves would have certainly won their division by more than 1 game and the Pirates would have won by less. So since Pendleton didn't contribute to winning games as much as Bonds did, he gets rewarded in your eyes since it made the race closer than it would have if he performed as well as Bonds. The fictional WAR construct has Bonds at 8.3 and Pendleton at 6.1 in case you're interested.

Also, numerous studies have proven that catchers have basically no impact on the ERA of a pitching staff. I could quote all of that here too but I recommend a quick Google. So the creature of an ERA-reducing catcher is a mythical as a clutch hitter.

If you were to ask any of the guys that do this for a living that are way smarter than I will ever be (Neyer, Law, the guys at BP/Fangraphs/Hardball, Posnanski, Bill James, Theo Epstein, etc.), I guarantee you every single one of them will say Bonds was more valuable that year in a landslide. For what that is worth.

I'm obviously not going to change your mind and vice versa and that is one of the things that make this game great. I just tend to think we should evaluate the game as objectively as possible instead of relying on what our gut tells us or with historical methods that really don't correlate to value or winning. Maybe a perfect measure of value will be created that refutes WAR/VORP/Win Shares, etc. and if so, I will gladly change my mind and agree Pendleton deserved the MVP.

i guess im a little confused, what does this have to do with ryan zimmerman winning the mvp?

 

[scotty21690]

^You obviously didn't read the whole thread :benson:

 

[blanning71]

May I just say that despite the fact if Zimmerman is MVP worthy, I'm more impressed with the indepth knowledge and statistical analysis that members of our site have put time into as far as trying to validate their take on things. Wow! We have some of the best folks in the entire world on this site!