So Mike Trout wins the AL MVP.....

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

What does 'valuable' have to do with winning?

That thought right there is what I'm getting at. Winning isn't even in the discussion. Winning isn't valuable??? I'll repeat it once more, winning is the most underappreciated statistic in sports.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

That thought right there is what I'm getting at. Winning isn't even in the discussion. Winning isn't valuable??? I'll repeat it once more, winning is the most underappreciated statistic in sports.

What does that have to do with the Most Valuable Player Award?

It's an award for being the most valuable player, not for the most winning player. It's not the "Best Player on A Winning Team Award".

You're trying to make the award something it's not and never was. Winning is its own award/reward.

You're making a point which is worth discussing but you're making it in connection with something that's only tangentially related your point at best as far as I can see. You can make the case that winning is somehow undervalued without applying to an award that by definition has nothing to do with winning. Winning is a team endeavor, the MVP is an individual award.

If you're going to take that line for the MVP award, shouldn't it apply to every other award as well, Rookie of the Year, Comeback Player of the Year, Gold Glove etc. etc. None of those awards are team awards, they're all individual awards, where the performance around rest of the team around the player is, or should be, completely irrelevant.

That's just my personal opinion of course and I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid, but I truly have a hard time seeing where you're coming from.

No one said winning isn't valuable, just that it has nothing, or at least very little, to do with an individual award.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I wasn't suggesting that & you know it.

Well make a better constructed argument. If you're gonna mail it in it will be mocked.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

What does that have to do with the Most Valuable Player Award?

It's an award for being the most valuable player, not for the most winning player. It's not the "Best Player on A Winning Team Award".

You're trying to make the award something it's not and never was. Winning is its own award/reward.

You're making a point which is worth discussing but you're making it in connection with something that's only tangentially related your point at best as far as I can see. You can make the case that winning is somehow undervalued without applying to an award that by definition has nothing to do with winning. Winning is a team endeavor, the MVP is an individual award.

If you're going to take that line for the MVP award, shouldn't it apply to every other award as well, Rookie of the Year, Comeback Player of the Year, Gold Glove etc. etc. None of those awards are team awards, they're all individual awards, where the performance around rest of the team around the player is, or should be, completely irrelevant.

That's just my personal opinion of course and I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid, but I truly have a hard time seeing where you're coming from.

No one said winning isn't valuable, just that it has nothing, or at least very little, to do with an individual award.

In other words, "winning is valuable, it just has nothing to do with who's valuable." That actually makes sense to you? "Canines are dogs, but canines have nothing to do with the best dog in the show".

Winning does have something to do with it. The fact that the nerds who worship the god of math have made it immaterial doesn't mean that's the way it has been from the award's conception.

We are talking about the LEAGUE'S MVP. No other team sport gives it's MVP to a player from a losing team. None. 77-84 should disqualify him from consideration just as if he hit .230. No one can convince me other wise.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by RchW

Well make a better constructed argument. If you're gonna mail it in it will be mocked.

It is very well constructed. Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean it isn't well thought out. I don't mind being mocked. This is a public forum. But I do object to people suggesting I said something I didn't.

[RchW]

Dola, here is the argument I made in 2012 where logic failed and blind obedience to a mythical collection of counting stats led to a bad MVP choice.

Originally Posted by RchW

You must have been puzzled by Hamilton winning MVP in 2010 when he played in 5 games after Aug 31. If playing well in September counts or adds weight to MVP consideration as some have suggested, then not playing should be sufficient to eliminate a player. Doing it any other way penalizes players who play every day.

Does the body of work trump getting hot or being very good in September? I think it must.

If one believes the opposite then players with average overall stats should be considered for MVP if they finish hot and are on a playoff team. I think making the playoffs is bogus because the current divisional set up does not give each team an equal chance.

The case against Trout seems to be based on ignoring his first 3 months, penalizing him for not playing in the first month (lower counting stats) and being in a tougher division with 2 other playoff capable teams.

As to player value the Angels had a 49-32 record in Trout's first 81 games Miggy led Detroit to a 39-42 record. In each players last 81 games (I'm aware that there is overlap for Trout due to less games played) the records were 44-37 Angels and 48-33 Tigers. Not much added value considering the difference in quality of opposition faced by each team.

In the last 81 games played the Tigers divisional opponents were 57 games under .500. The Angels divisional opponents were 34 games over .500. If you look at the entire AL removing mutual opponents (records cancel out) but keeping divisional opponents the Tigers played opponents that were -34 and the Angels played opponents that were +27. I'm hard pressed to see any significant value added by Cabrera in the last 81 games. In crunch time from Sep 1 through the end of the season LA had a 19-11 record and Detroit was 18-13.

In summary; Trout has a higher value individual season playing less games and has a better team record than Cabrera in crunch time against better opposition in a tougher division and a three way playoff fight down the stretch. The closer I look the more of a slam dunk it is for Trout..

Thread url

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...igers-fan.html



I'd also call your attention to 2010 where Josh Hamilton played 5 games in September. What about his September performance was meaningful.

[Westheim]

This is an individual player award for the best overall player. It is not an award for the best player on the team that won the most games. From what I can see in the stats, that MVP is correctly allocated.

Poor Mike Trout has it hard enough that he plays on the west coast and nobody notices him (I would like to, but due to the 9-hour time difference, I haven't seen him play in YEARS), and that he is on a team that is in the most dire straits.

If the '21 Yankees had been Babe Ruth and 20+ one-legged hunchbacks and had finished 60-94, what would your call be for MVP then? By your logic, the Cy Young should always go to the pitcher with the most wins, since he's got to be on a darn good team.

[Cobra Mgr]

How many of you actually know how WAR works, what it is attempting to do, how it is calculated, etc?

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I told you. 77-84, 4th place

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

In other words, "winning is valuable, it just has nothing to do with who's valuable." That actually makes sense to you? "Canines are dogs, but canines have nothing to do with the best dog in the show".

Winning does have something to do with it. The fact that the nerds who worship the god of math have made it immaterial doesn't mean that's the way it has been from the award's conception.

We are talking about the LEAGUE'S MVP. No other team sport gives it's MVP to a player from a losing team. None. 77-84 should disqualify him from consideration just as if he hit .230. No one can convince me other wise.

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

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

BBWAA.com: Official site of the Baseball Writers' Assn. of America.

I don't see anything here about the MVP having to be on one of the best teams? In fact, it actually says the opposite.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

We are talking about the LEAGUE'S MVP. No other team sport gives it's MVP to a player from a losing team. None. 77-84 should disqualify him from consideration just as if he hit .230. No one can convince me other wise.

You can't compare baseball to other sports. The influence of one player often one position in other sports is far greater than in baseball with a few spectacular exceptions usually pitchers.

Basketball. One great player can make a losing team into a playoff contender. Five players on court 12-15 on roster. If a great player has 2-3 other good players a team can dominate.

Football. Quarterbacks have won MVP all but 8 times in 30 years. Running backs the rest. QB's are the position most tied to winning and losing so it's not a challenge to pick the QB on a winning team just about every year. Who else would even be considered?

Hockey is a bit of a mix. Mostly forwards who score, the odd goalie and even less defencemen with the exception of Bobby Orr. Interestingly both Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky won at least one MVP while on losing teams.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

I don't see anything here about the MVP having to be on one of the best teams? In fact, it actually says the opposite.

I also don't see anything that says I can't make wins a criteria either. Therefore, I'm not wrong if, IMO, I feel he doesn't qualify on that criteria alone. <eye rolls proceeding>

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by RchW

You can't compare baseball to other sports.

Uhh....yes I can.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I also don't see anything that says I can't make wins a criteria either. Therefore, I'm not wrong if, IMO, I feel he doesn't qualify on that criteria alone. <eye rolls proceeding>

Sure, you can advicate for who you believed deserves it most. However, you cannot insist that a player shouldnt have won or should be disqualified for consideration due to teams record when the official criteria says the opposite.

The award is subjective, the criteria for having to be be on a winning team to win is not. You don't have to be.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Uhh....yes I can.

To be more precise, the comparison is useless different criteria are important. But go ahead pick more nits.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

Sure, you can advicate for who you believed deserves it most. However, you cannot insist that a player shouldnt have won or should be disqualified for consideration due to teams record when the official criteria says the opposite.

The award is subjective, the criteria for having to be be on a winning team to win is not. You don't have to be.

There is absolutely nothing in what you posted that says I cannot use a team's record. Absolutely nothing. You're making up stuff now.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by RchW

To be more precise, the comparison is useless different criteria are important. But go ahead pick more nits.

In your opinion. But not in mine.


Repeat, since it evidently got missed.

How many of you actually know how WAR works, what it is attempting to do, how it is calculated, etc?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

In your opinion. But not in mine.


Repeat, since it evidently got missed.

Quote:
How many of you actually know how WAR works, what it is attempting to do, how it is calculated, etc?

I didn't miss it just can't answer as I'm not able to ask or report on the "you" you refer to.

Are you asking me?

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

There is absolutely nothing in what you posted that says I cannot use a team's record. Absolutely nothing. You're making up stuff now.

You made the assertion thst Trout should be disqualified because his team finished 77-84. I pointed out in the rules that it clearly states award winner does not have to come from winning team or playoff qualifier. I also stated your are free to advocate for however you feel deserves the award. The award is subjective. However, as I stated the rules that say a player does not have to be on playoff team are not subjective.

Since you're not understanding let me summarize. I have no problem with you disagreeing with the pick. The criteria is very subjective. I have no problem with you using wins if you feel that matters to defend you who would pick because as you stated there is no rules saying you cannot use wins. (Who would you pick for award btw?) However, I do have a problem with you insisting that an MVP has to be on a winning team because the rules state they do not.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by RchW

I didn't miss it just can't answer as I'm not able to ask or report on the "you" you refer to.

Are you asking me?

Come on, man..................

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Come on, man..................

I don't know how many posters here know how WAR is calculated. I mean seriously stop being a dick.