MVPs: TROUT, BRYANT

[chaddurbin]

best player (10wins) is also the most valuable. best bill ($100) is more valuable than a $50 bill. the $100 has more value, whether you're a techie millennial or a high school student pulling down min wage at mcdonald's. it's a pretty simple concept.

[packs]

Betts I think was hampered by Ortiz's season. During the season a bunch of people were calling for Ortiz to be the MVP, though Betts was clearly the best player on the team. Trout, though, has no competition on the Angels and is clearly not only their best player, but the best player in the league. His advanced stats tells you everything you need to know:

#1 in WAR
#1 in Offensive WAR
#1 in OBP
#1 in OPS +
#1 in Runs Created (on a terrible team)
#1 in Power Speed

In many of these categories he is ahead of only Betts. So he clearly had the better season.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by packs

Betts I think was hampered by Ortiz's season. During the season a bunch of people were calling for Ortiz to be the MVP, though Betts was clearly the best player on the team. Trout, though, has no competition on the Angels and is clearly not only their best player, but the best player in the league. His advanced stats tells you everything you need to know:

#1 in WAR
#1 in Offensive WAR
#1 in OBP
#1 in OPS +
#1 in Runs Created (on a terrible team)
#1 in Power Speed

In many of these categories he is ahead of only Betts.

I read somewhere that some of the stats he's putting up this early in his career are putting him in company that only Babe Ruth is in.

[packs]

I think Mike Trout's age 28 to 31 seasons will be legendary.

[Econteachert205]

The only ridiculous argument is that a player on a losing team is somehow more valuable to that team than a player with similar statistics on a winning team. The gold standard for this is Steve Carlton in 1972. So valuable, if it weren't for him they would have sucked worse. Also a player cannot put a team on his back for a whole season, but certainly can for one month, I've seen David Ortiz do it.

[nat]

The directions for voting for the award mention "actual contribution to the team", and explicitly say that the winner need not come from a playoff team. Trout simply contributed more wins to his team than Betts did to his.

As for Verlander and advanced stats. No, that's not it. Verlander does very well by the advanced stats. He actually led the league in baseball-reference's version of WAR (albeit by a meaninglessly small margin over Kluber). I don't know why Verlander was left off two ballots, he really shouldn't have been.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by nat

The directions for voting for the award mention "actual contribution to the team", and explicitly say that the winner need not come from a playoff team. Trout simply contributed more wins to his team than Betts did to his.

As for Verlander and advanced stats. No, that's not it. Verlander does very well by the advanced stats. He actually led the league in baseball-reference's version of WAR (albeit by a meaninglessly small margin over Kluber). I don't know why Verlander was left off two ballots, he really shouldn't have been.

I was going to make the point you just did. Where does it say you have to be the most valuable player to a winning team. If the Angels didn't have Trout they may not have had any shot a fielding a competitive team.

[nsaddict]

Guess times have changed. If you want to see a travesty of justice, check out the 1934 mvp voting. They gave it to Cochrane because his Tigers finished first, Yanks 3rd.Total screw job!

Cochrane war (4.0) runs (74) hits (140) hr(2) rbi (75) avg (320)


Gehrig war (10.4) runs (128) hits (210) hr (49) rbi (166) avg (363)

and Lou ended up 5th in voting? wtf

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by nat

Trout simply contributed more wins to his team than Betts did to his.

Totally agree. This is what makes him more valuable IMHO.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by nat

The directions for voting for the award mention "actual contribution to the team", and explicitly say that the winner need not come from a playoff team. Trout simply contributed more wins to his team than Betts did to his.

As for Verlander and advanced stats. No, that's not it. Verlander does very well by the advanced stats. He actually led the league in baseball-reference's version of WAR (albeit by a meaninglessly small margin over Kluber). I don't know why Verlander was left off two ballots, he really shouldn't have been.

Hey, whatever makes Kate happy!


bb

[Econteachert205]

When will the voters wise up and elect a manager of a dog crap team manager of the year because of his managerial WAR? After all they wouldn't have won 71 games with any other manager

[Snapolit1]

I confess that an entire generation of advanced baseball analytics has totally passed me by. If it wasn't on the back of a 1978 Topps, I have little idea what it means. Very little. But I have to assume all these advanced and super advanced analytics explains some of the craziness that is now happening -- like Verlander not getting on peoples ballots and the guy who wins the AL Cy Young then shows up nowhere on the MVP ballot while Verlander does. I think some of this stuff is getting people so far up their own [FILL IN THE BLANK] that they are really missing the forest for the trees. Or they are trying to prove how brilliant they are by latching on to stuff no one else is thinking about.

Signed, Old School Baseball Fan.