Let's put it out there right up front—I disagree that Dustin Pedroia was the American League's Most Valuable Player.
I think there were worthier candidates, namely Carlos Quentin and Justin Morneau. But I have no problem with Pedroia winning the award.
His case was as flawed as the others so it's just a matter of personal taste making the slight difference between winner and losers.
I wrote as much recently.
Except for the one moron at the bottom, the response was muted. I usually take that to mean people either agreed, were ambivalent, or disagreed too mildly to post a response.
That's a win as far as I'm concerned.
But it was champ's response that got me thinking about how ridiculous the school of thought really is that argues for handing the MVP award to a player from a non-contender.
Here is a guy who believes so blindly in the power of statistics to prove true value that he calls me lazy for not including such insane candidates as Grady Sizemore, Milton Bradley, and (presumably) Josh Hamilton. He just assumes that, if I didn't include them, it's because I was too lazy to consider them.
He is so convinced that players from non-contenders are serious options that he tries to personally insult me for my presumed oversight.
And he is so, so, so very wrong.
However, the truly disturbing part is not that one random blogger believes this, it's that the mental midget in question represents a much larger group. One that seems to actually be taken seriously. A group that will condescendingly accuse you of not doing enough research into the idea if you dismiss the notion. Of grossly misunderstanding what real value in baseball means.
Bingo! That's the pinnacle of hilarity for this topic.
Because look at each MVP winner from both the American and National Leagues compared to his team's success since Major League Baseball expanded to three divisions and wild cards (if the MVP reps a division winner, I made no notation for readability's sake):
1995 - Mo Vaughn for Boston and Barry Larkin for Cincinnati
1996 - Juan Gonzalez for Texas and Ken Caminiti for San Diego
1997 - Ken Griffey, Jr. for Seattle and Larry Walker for Colorado (finished third)
1998 - Gonzalez for Texas and Sammy Sosa for Chicago (won NL wild card)
1999 - Ivan Rodriguez for Texas and Chipper Jones for Atlanta
2000 - Jason Giambi for Oakland and Jeff Kent for San Francisco
2001 - Ichiro Suzuki for Seattle and Barry Bonds for SF (finished second)
2002 - Miguel Tejada for Oakland and Bonds for SF (won NL wild card)
2003 - Alex Rodriguez for Texas (finished last) and Bonds for SF
2004 - Vladimir Guerrero for Anaheim and Bonds for SF (finished second)
comments (22) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
SO do you actually want readers to believe that simply because the voters (I'll discuss them in a second) typically vote for players on 'winning' teams that players on 'winning' teams are the only ones to consider? That is your rationale?
Now, let's talk about the voters, for just one second.
These voters, if you recall, are so clearly qualified, that they name players that are ineligible for awards (see Edinson Volquez). Are you really going to take the backs of these people?
These voters, if you recall, took Bartolo Colon as the 2005 AL Cy Young Winner despite being LARGELY inferior to Johan Santana.
The list, can go on and on, but the point remains the same, the BBWAA make glaring errors with essentially every award on an annual basis.
All that being said, yes, team success is important, but not to the MVP award. Look back in history and point out who won previous MVP's, I don't care! That doesn't mean the voters got it correct all those years. Hell, 25 years ago, batting average was the only independent category the voters looked at.
I find it laughable, and erroneous, that you explain why those who weren't on 'winners' won the awards. Your claim is correct, they clearly deserved it. Why were you afraid to look at the eventual winners and assert that they clearly deserved it? Why did you chalk it up to them being on a winning team? Because it supports your argument? Is that not lazy?
The FACT is, its easier to have a good or great season when you are surrounded with stars. This is what happened with Pedroia. His season, as you suggest was not the best, but he won anyways because he contributed to a winning team. The problem is, you don't know by how much unless you consider the 'value' and 'win' stats. Even easy to understand ones like WPA and VORP.
I'm glad you called me out here. I just wish, for your sake, that you would have used some decent information to back your argument.
from about 1 month ago
Moron = someone who immediately jumps to personal insults just b/c he doesn't agree with someone's opinion.
Moron = someone who immediately jumps to personal insults based on a single article written online about baseball.
Moron = you
There's an interesting little concept called trade usage. The legal world uses it when appropriate to define vague contract terms, etc. In the case of the MVP voting criteria (correct me if I'm wrong), the only explicit prereqs are games played and value to your team. Since 'value' is an ambiguous term in baseball, the only reasonable way to define it is through looking at the winners of the award and trying to define its meaning through their commonalities.
This also makes sense since, you know, the award was created by the same people who vote for it. I think it's pretty egomaniacal to claim the creators and, thus definers of an award based on an ambiguous term have gotten that definition wrong.
Anyway, there is one quite obvious feature that 93% of the winners share - playing for a contender.
Yet you choose to call a trend found in 26 out of 28 members of the sample set a coincidence. And it's not like I picked a set that fit my argument.
Oh, and you continue to misrepresent and oversimplify my argument.
Outstanding my friend. Truly outstanding. I'm back to ignoring you.
from about 1 month ago
Quote me when I 'personally insulted' you. I simply called you lazy, and stand by that.
Correcting you where you are wrong - Games played is not a prerequisite for the MVP award. It is for batting titles and 'records'.
Go ahead, look back at the award. Make sure to stop in with the 2008 NL Rookie of the Year Award which saw an ineligible player receiving rookie awards.
Value changes over time. What WAS deemed as valuable years back, may not be deemed valuable today. For example, owning a house in America had a lot more value 10 years ago then it does today. An economic crisis, an understanding of worth, or what-have-you can affect this.
Similarly, in baseball, batting average was considered the most valuable measure of a hitter. It was assumed that if a hitter had a .300 batting average, he was invariably a 'good' hitter. However, is that same definition held true today?
The obvious answer is that it is not. A hitter with a .300 average can be worth a substantial amount less then a hitter with a .240 batting average as we now understand that simply getting on base is more important then HITTING to get on base.
Another mode of thinking that has changed is the value of a strikeout. Years back, a strikeout was considered a negative out, however that has changed over time as we have learned that a strikeout is similarly as negative as any other form of out-in fact, there is a growing understanding that a strikeout is less negative then a ground out.
As you can see, the thinking has changed over the years. So simply quoting winners of the MVP award in a bubble is meaningless. 25 years ago, Juan Pierre would have been an elite hitter, and Adam Dunn would have been relegated to the bench. Today, we understand that would be a major mistake.
The reason why I claim this to be a coincidence is because you failed to acknowledge that it wasn't. You failed to suggest that when Bonds won his awards, he wasn't the OBVIOUS choice, as Rodriguez was when he won his.
The fact is, I'm sure if you look back, you will see that winning is traditionally secondary to factual evidence. I can buy the voters taking winning into account on certain seasons (ie this year in the AL), but that doesn't justify this as a valid point.
That being said, you still haven't provided a legitimate and logical reason for Pedroia to be selected as this years winner. Keep trying.
from about 1 month ago
I can't resist:
"Quote me when I 'personally insulted' you. I simply called you lazy," - uhhh....
"Correcting you where you are wrong - Games played is not a prerequisite for the MVP award. It is for batting titles and 'records'." - From Ken Rosenthal who I generally do not enjoy but who votes for the actual awards:
"While the MVP ballot states, There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means, it also lists five criteria. The first is, Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense. The second is, Number of games played."
So yes, I was wrong. There are more than the 2 criteria I stated. But for someone who loves research so much, another smashing call.
"Value changes over time." - very true, except for winning. Which is why the vast majority of the winners ALWAYS share that attribute. At a certain point, coincidence becomes correlation. That point is well south of a 93% trend, especially in baseball.
"Another mode of thinking that has changed is the value of a strikeout...there is a growing understanding that a strikeout is less negative then a ground out." - This is insane. There is no growing understanding in baseball. There might be a growing understanding in hard-core sabermetric circles, but it is plan and simply wrong.
A K is only a better option than putting the ball in play if it's a DP situation. Even then, putting the ball in play gives the hitter a chance for a bad hop, an error, an act of God, anything else. Then there is the psychological impact of failing to make contact on 3 or more offerings from a pitcher. Then there is the issue of moving runners over. Then the issue of the confidence given to an opposing pitcher by a K. Then the issue of confidence given the opposing team by a K. Etc., etc., ETC.
This is a perfect example of the problem with stat gurus and their assertions that stats "prove" anything. Either this one takes a look at balls put in play that were turned into outs, which is an inherently flawed measure since one of the main advantages over Ks is a ball in play can be turned into an error. Or the formula is so complicated, the general public is just supposed to take its accuracy on faith. And even then it can't take into account the psychological effect.
Ridiculous. I can promise you that every single person who has every played the game outside of Little League and operates a functional nervous system will tell you putting the ball in play is better than whiffing 99 times out of 100.
"25 years ago, Juan Pierre would have been an elite hitter, and Adam Dunn would have been relegated to the bench. Today, we understand that would be a major mistake." - First, who understands this would be a major mistake? You and your cronies think it would be, but no one knows. This is BASEBALL. Second, in another 25 years, your next generation could "know" that playing Dunn over Pierre would be a major mistake. That's why I go by what I see on the field and turn to stats to sift through the gray area - stats CAN be used to prove ANYTHING.
"You still haven't provided a legitimate and logical reason for Pedroia to be selected as this years winner." - I didn't know that was my objective.
"As far as I know the BBWAA are not directly affiliated with the MLB." - "affiliation" = the act of becoming closely connected or associated. I think voting for every major regular season award, the Hall of Fame inductees, and working in concert to allow press members access to the athletes is a close connection. Maybe it's just me.
"[Y]et I am the one who was OFFERED (without applying) a position with a website with ML affiliation." - awesome, then why are you on here trying desperately to bash others?
"MAYBE you might want to open your mind a little bit and acknowledge that someone might be able to teach you something about baseball." - plenty of people can teach me a TON about baseball. You're not one of them, Mr. PE.
"Pujols was not on a winning team" - his team contended until the early part of the stretch run and STL finished 4 games out of the postseason.
And it's awesome that you dub me lazy for not writing the column that you wanted written. Awesome.
Oh, and you conveniently ignore the Hank Aaron Award, created by MLB to reward the best HITTER with no reference to value or team success. Tough to explain that one huh big guy? I mean, the MVP's already supposed to do that, right? I guess MLB just wanted to hand out their own version.
Lastly, you try TO do something. You do not try AND do something. If you try AND do something, you have just done it. There is no reason to specify that you tried unless it is something usually done without effort.
That website must be really proud.
from about 1 month ago
RE: Games played
I'd like to see that explained in further detail. Otherwise, I simply cannot wrap my head around how pitchers receive votes at all. That said, I was wrong, but I'd still like to see what is meant by 'games played'.
"very true, except for winning"
False. The makeup of a winning team has changed greatly. The manner in which a team wins changes from year to year. Once defensive play was knocked, it is now one of the spotlight statistics.
That said, feel free to prove me wrong and show that more then half of the 93% of winners from playoff caliber teams were not the obvious choices. Your avoidance of such is saying something loud and clear to me.
"the psychological impact"
You mean a worse impact then a hitter KNOWING he is going to fail 6 or 7 times out of ten? The fact is, an out is an out.
That being said. If a hitter did not make contact in 99 out of 100 plate appearances, I wonder how much worse (if at all) that would be then softly grounding out 99 out of 100 plate appearances? Maybe causing a double play 10-15% of the time.
Both are extremes, but certainly if a player struck out 99 out of 100 PA's, he wouldn't be in as bad of shape as the guy who caused 110 outs in 100 PA's.
"That's why I go by what I see on the field and turn to stats to sift through the gray area..."
Gray area? You mean you could watch every at bat from two players and distinctly tell the difference between a .260 and a .300 hitter? There is a lot to be said about watching the game of baseball, but without the statistics, the accuracy of the eyes on ballplayers would continue to promote the Juan Pierre's of baseball.
And that's where statistics has a leg up. People who study stats are open to the idea of change. People who ignore them, continue to plug the Juan Pierre's of MLB in a lineup, and worse yet at the top of a batting order.
Further, legitimate statistical studies do not intend to prove ANYTHING true, they intend to seek truth. While there are certain people who incorrectly use stats, true statisticians know that a theory is only legitimate if it cannot be proven incorrect, not that it can be proven true. If a theory can be proven true, it is most likely false and the research completed was typically incorrect.
RE: BBWAA
Yes, it is just you. I'm not sure one way or another, but I do find it interesting that it says nothing about affiliation on the members website. Feel free to peruse the BBWAA site and fully understand what this group is.
"bashing others"
Again, I never bashed, simply asked for you to be less lazy. You then countered that with an even more lazy analysis.
And why I bother is to advance the conversation in baseball. I bother, to get my name out there. Any press is good press.
RE: Hank Aaron award
Yes, that is exactly it actually. Had MLB stayed with their previous formula, you would have an argument. Today it is a vote that is based on air time and not stats (facts), similar to the gold gloves.
RE: Pedroia
It was your objective as you were trying to prove that he was a worthy candidate. The problem is, you didn't prove such.
RE: Website(s)
They all do seem to be happy with the work I do, thanks.
about 1 month ago
One more thing...
When you get a chance, define 'moron'.
And when you are finished, source it with all the places you have been offered writing positions at that have a direct affiliation with Major League Baseball. You know, just so everyone can understand how credible you are.
Thanks.
from about 1 month ago
Yawn.
And I don't get it, isn't the BBWAA directly affiliated with MLB? Yet you dismiss their definition of their own award, so they must lack credibility but if they offered me a position that would prove my credibility?
Or is the fact that nobody's ever offered me (nor have I ever applied for one, but I'm sure that won't matter to you) a writing position prove my credibility? Or my lack of it?
Or is it everyone affiliated with MLB is credible except the BBWAA members?
Or are only people who agree with you credible?
Cuckoo, cuckoo.
from about 1 month ago
As far as I know the BBWAA are not directly affiliated with the MLB. Just quickly scanning the BBWAA constitution, I cannot find a spot where 'affiliation' nor 'association' are linked with MLB directly. The writers are from newspapers and are given press credentials, but I'm not certain they are actually AFFILIATED with MLB.
That being said, there are plenty of writers within the BBWAA whom I respect despite regularly disagreeing with. There are also a great deal of non-BBWAA writers whom I do not have respect for, yet regularly disagree with. In fact, there are also BBWAA writers whom I have no respect for, yet find myself agreeing with.
My point was, you call me a moron, yet I am the one who was OFFERED (without applying) a position with a website with ML affiliation. You try and bash my credibility stating that I am a 'blogger' who apparently does not socialize with others, yet I am the one who has been offered positions to have my writing views by exponentially more individuals then blogspot offers.
Now I'm not trying to directly knock your credibility, nor am I saying that the offers I have received make me the better writer. Rather, what I am trying to say is that MAYBE you might want to open your mind a little bit and acknowledge that someone might be able to teach you something about baseball. That's all.
from about 1 month ago
Congrats Brandon.
You've piled so many ridiculously self-serving and obviously false statements on top of one another, that even they no longer interest me. I'll just pick the most breath-taking example and end this useless exercise:
"True statisticians know that a theory is only legitimate if it cannot be proven incorrect, not that it can be proven true. If a theory can be proven true, it is most likely false and the research completed was typically incorrect."
Holy crap....do Sir Isaac Newton, Alfred Einstein, Copernicus, Ptolemy, and the rest know this?
Because you just threw gravity, relativity, and pretty much the development of science out the window.
The rest of your tripe is equally transparent and false (really, calling me lazy without provocation is advancing the conversation of baseball?).
And your last sentence says it all, "any press is good press."
You're a bitter, angry little punk with little grace and even less integrity. In short, you are perfect for the anti-bloggers. You are the ammunition they use to attack the rest of us who hold ourselves to a higher standard.
I'd come to expect more from Bleacher Report's highly-ranked writers.
from about 1 month ago
If you knew anything about those original theories, you would know that they have all been substantially altered from what the originators came up with. You would also know that not one of them was a result of trying to prove something correct.
I'll just assume you haven't read a single book about theoretical analysis.
Stay tuned for when I shoot down your pathetic 'the majority of MVPs were on winning teams, so you must have to be on a winning team' argument. A lesson in theoretical analysis will ensue.
from about 1 month ago
PS - I'm not a 'blogger', I'm a writer and an analyst. It simply is distributed via a blog forum as I feel wasting time on HTML coding would hinder my analysis.
from about 1 month ago
Can't wait.
about 1 month ago
Team success is definitely important for a MVP why do you think Ichiro was a MVP award winner? His team won 116 games so someone had to get it. When in actuality there were other players on his team and around the league that deserved the MVP more, mainly Jason Giambi or Brett Boone. Ichiro's MVP is a joke.
So is Dustin Pedroia winning it. You put Pedroia on Minnesota with their lack of offensive fire power or the Chicago White Sox they wouldn't be in the playoffs. Where as substitute Quentin or Moreneau in the Red Sox lineup they'd be in the playoffs no problem.
Moreneau lead the Twins for the whole season and almost got them to the playoffs even with their offensive ineptness. The White Sox were a decent team but Quentin really hurt his cause for the MVP after breaking his wrist, but before that he was putting the White Sox on his back. Pedroia would have had more success with the White Sox lineup because of the power hitters in Dye and Thome.
The voters got it wrong. They went with the popular pick because Pedroia's height. Pedroia had a solid season, but he is not a MVP. You could make a stronger case with Youkilis as MVP, but Pedroia is definitely not the MVP.
So, just like the 2001 MVP award where Ichiro has won I will discount Pedroia as an MVP winner because it's an absolute garbage pick and the writers clearly got it wrong. All of them failed at their job as soon as Pedroia was announced.
from about 1 month ago
I have no problem with that. It sounds like you agree that including Sizemore and the Rangers bats were not viable MVP candidates as the award has been defined i.e. predicated on team success as much as anything.
I'm not saying it should be or should not be, what I'm saying is that it is. So calling someone lazy for not considering guys on teams that were non-contenders all years is moronic.
from about 1 month ago
So Andrew...
Where is your article bashing the BBWAA for not following their 'unspoken' guidelines for the 2008 NL MVP. Pujols was not on a winning team yet he was somehow deserving of the award?
Like I said, I think if you took the time to actually investigate the winners, you would find that being on a playoff caliber team is secondary to performance. But you didn't. That is why I tabbed you as 'lazy'.
about 1 month ago
LOVE THE moron response - above
from about 1 month ago
Thanks Long. Always appreciate the support. Looks like I'll be in SF next year...
about 1 month ago
Can't we all just get along! Brandon & Andrew both make valid points. With the introduction of sabermetrics and no real set of guidelines on how the MVP is voted on, it's left to the descretion of the voters. It was obvious in the AL there was no clear cut choice this year. Had Carlos Quenton not threw a fit and basically broke his own wrist, he could've had a shot. Hard to vote on someone who pulled a bonehead move like that and let his team down. Morneau hit .100 in the last 8 games of the season while trying to get in the playoffs. Pedroia played pretty consistantly all throughout the year and really only he and Youkilis stayed healthy for the Sox all year and carried the team when Papi, Drew, etc.. were injured at various points in the season. I feel that's why he won, not saying he had a season for the ages or anything, but that's my feeling. Personally, when there is no clear cut choice from the contending teams, it broadens the spectrum. This year reminds me of I believe in 1988 when Kirk Gibson won the NL award. Definately not dominating numbers, but he was the heart of that Dodgers team. Andrew - There was one thing you said that has my head scratching though. HOW can a strikeout be less of a negative out than a ground out? In a bases empty situation, it's pretty equal. If you strikeout, the only way you can get on base is the ball get away from the catcher. If you ground out, the only way you can get on base is an error. If the leadoff hitter got a double and Ryan Howard is at the plate with nobody out and down in the count 0-2, I want the man to ground out to 2nd to get the guy to third. If he strikes out, that's an unproductive out. You'll have to explain the rationale behind that one.
from about 1 month ago
Buddy,
Totally agree on all accounts.
I wouldn't have taken issue with the bonehead above except he called me lazy for not including his arguments in a piece I wrote. I happen to place less faith in stats, that does not make me lazy.
And I totally agree re Ks v. ground outs. It was Brandon who said Ks are more positive.
from about 1 month ago
Ooops, forgot to say thanks for the constructive feedback. It's always appreciated.
from about 1 month ago
Buddy,
The theory is based on thousands of simulations and events that have occurred. While a ground out advancing the runner is the best form of an out, the amount of blunders (double plays, poor running decisions, etc) out weigh the simplicity of a strikeout.
This is simply a theory, with facts backing it up. It doesn't have any play in 'Little League', but it is a stream of thought.
Take for example the amount of times you see a pitcher in an 0-2 go away from the bunt and swing away.
Again, a theory, not a science, but one that is testing common beliefs and putting up a legitimate argument.
about 1 month ago
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/84756-the-problem-with-lazy-analysis
Lazy
write a new comment