Ryan Zimmerman is your MVP

[pigskincardboard]

Ryan Zimmerman's currently the best player in the NL and it's really no contest. His hitting isn't quite what Votto and Pujols are doin' up, but his defensive ability is so superior that it's not even close.

So tell me, what does Ryan Zimmerman have to do to win the MVP (assuming the Nats don't make the playoffs)? Polanco, Torres and Jay Bruce (guh?) are the only players with statistically better defensive seasons right now and only Polanco plays a premium position (in terms of positional replacement value).

Does Zimmerman have to equal their offensive numbers while destroying them defensively? His numbers are set to come out around 32HR/92R/93RBI but he's currently sporting a .304 AVG /.389OBP/.549 SLG. Vott's at .324/.423/.593 and Pujols is raking at a .314/.408/.590.

So, does the best player in the NL right now have any shot of winning the MVP?

 

[jbhofmann]

No.

 

[ballerskrip]

ahahah, come on bud. We all know that he won't finish in the top 3. I would guess that Carlos Gonzalez is #3 right now (even though his team is struggling, he might fall further because of this).

Nothing against Zimmy, dude is a stud. But not enough people care about defense or even have a clue where to look up defensive rankings for it to make a difference. Plus his team is in what, 4th place? Not that this means he can't win it, but with Votto and Pujols staking claim to 1st place in the central, it will make a difference.

skrip

 

[AmishDave]

I'm still shocked he got run last night :shock:

 

[matfanofold]

It's unfortunate, but the MVP voting is heavily swayed by offensive production(although there may be rare exceptions). This is not to invalidate Zimmys contribution to his team offensively or defensively, but other than anecdotal chatter involving Zimmerman and MVP together, it's just not going to happen as it stands right now.

I am curious though, do you honestly believe he is the MVP? Do you actually think he is going to win?

 

[blanning71]

wait a minute..................whuuuuuuuuuut????????? MVP? Hell. I'd just like him to make an All Star team! LOL

 

[KOBEARODLT]

his hitting not "quite being votto or pujols" is a HUGE uderstatement...and pujols and votto both play tremendous defense, im sorry but zimmerman is not even in the same breath as those two right now

 

[SeattleSports]

Zimmerman is not in the top 5.

 

[blanning71]

and don't get me wrong, Zimmy is my guy and all but I just don't think he's put up numbers worthy of a top 5 MVP voting position. While it would thrill me to no end to see him win it, he's got a long way to be able to win it outright. Pujols and Votto should be 1-2 and then I'm sure its a tossup after that. Just being in the top 10 would be a great achievement for him and a huge boost of confidence. His offensive numbers are pretty decent but he's streaky right now. I would think he would have to produce daily for him to be in consideration.

 

[darocker80]

Ehh he'll get in the top 10 but i'll be surprised if top 3 LOL.

I am hoping for silver slugger and gold glvoe again

 

[leatherman]

Until the Nationals are a contending team, Zimmerman has no shot at the MVP. You can't win the MVP on a last place team unless your offensive numbers are HUGE (see 1987 Andre Dawson and 2003 Alex Rodriguez, who both led the league in HRs).

Where would the Nationals be without Zimmerman? In last place, just like they are now.


David

 

[craftysouthpaw]

I could be convinced he is the best player in the NL this year but it is really close. He is 3rd in WAR per baseball-reference behind Gonzalez and Pujols and 1st in WAR per fangraphs (not sure why or how they compute WAR differently).

Plus, there is still 1/4 of the season left and I would bet on Pujols pulling away from the pack.

All that said, everyone here knows he has no shot at MVP even if he is slightly ahead of the other guys because of the team he is on.

 

[ahodge84]

The same reason that Suh didn't win the Heisman this past season. Different sport, same idea: Defense takes the back seat to offense.

 

[TomMurry]

Where would the Nationals be without Zimmerman? In last place, just like they are now.

Post thanked. This is a perfect explanation. The MVP is for the player whose team would be in a different situation without them. Having great stats on a last place team actually makes the player look LESS valuable. On another team, Zimmerman might have a shot at MVP as he's definitely a great player.

 

[craftysouthpaw]

The award is for the most valuable player not for the most valuable player on a contending team (despite the fact this is how most voters tend to vote). Nowhere is the award defined as for a "player whose team would be in a different situation without them". And even if it was, the Nationals would have roughly 6 less wins with a replacement level player at third instead of Zimmerman - which is the biggest difference of anyone in the NL based upon Fangraphs. If someone thinks the best player in the league looks less valuable because his teammates stink, they have shown a severe lack of critical thinking and should never be allowed to vote again.

Logic dictates the best player is also the most valuable player - i.e. the player that most improves a team's chances of winning games. And if Zimmerman is truly the best, he *should* be the MVP. Pujols or Votto shouldn't get extra credit because they have more talented teammates than Zimmerman. But the BBWAA has proven time again they are distracted by shiny objects like wins, RBI's, and a team's finish in the standings. So the reality is he has no shot - which stinks. Once the new guard of writers are allowed to vote in greater numbers, hopefully this archaic approach to awards, the HOF, etc. will go away.

I still think Pujols will pull away from the pack and the issue will be moot for this year. But the underlying problem will remain.

 

[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.

 

[pigskincardboard]

The award is for the most valuable player not for the most valuable player on a contending team (despite the fact this is how most voters tend to vote). Nowhere is the award defined as for a "player whose team would be in a different situation without them". And even if it was, the Nationals would have roughly 6 less wins with a replacement level player at third instead of Zimmerman - which is the biggest difference of anyone in the NL based upon Fangraphs. If someone thinks the best player in the league looks less valuable because his teammates stink, they have shown a severe lack of critical thinking and should never be allowed to vote again.

Logic dictates the best player is also the most valuable player - i.e. the player that most improves a team's chances of winning games. And if Zimmerman is truly the best, he *should* be the MVP. Pujols or Votto shouldn't get extra credit because they have more talented teammates than Zimmerman. But the BBWAA has proven time again they are distracted by shiny objects like wins, RBI's, and a team's finish in the standings. So the reality is he has no shot - which stinks. Once the new guard of writers are allowed to vote in greater numbers, hopefully this archaic approach to awards, the HOF, etc. will go away.

I still think Pujols will pull away from the pack and the issue will be moot for this year. But the underlying problem will remain.

I've been using fangraphs for way too long, so I always just reference them. I think this post illustrates just how jaded some baseball fans are when it comes to placing a value on skills and production.

 

[pigskincardboard]

By the way, how about that Josh Hamilton kid.

 

[leatherman]

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

 

[pigskincardboard]

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

Well, let me be the first to say that there's no logic used in the voting process and it's been that way for a damn long time. Sometimes the BBWAA get lucky and pick the best player.