The AL MVP Race
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
If Seattle somehow makes the playoffs, and one of Cano or Seager just goes off in the process, aren't they potential MVP candidates?
Seager is tied with Donaldson and Machado for WAR at 6.6. Cano is at 6.3. The team has won 6 games in a row and is 2 1/2 back of the WC.
Slight digression: the way the Seagers are showing up in the BBref and FG WAR lists is a pretty good quick & dirty indictment of the current state of defensive metrics. The two sites are in perfect agreement about their offensive value: Corey 35 runs, Kyle 28. But while FG has Corey at 10.5 runs of fielding value and Kyle at 2.3, BBref has it reversed: Kyle at 13, Corey at -1. That's amazing. There is more than a win's worth of difference between how two different advanced metrics have rated each of these guys' gloves this year. Calling that imprecise is like calling Niagara Falls a bit damp.
Last edited:
It's how they finish the year. Mookie is opsing under .700 for September. If he continues to struggle and Seattle remains hot and sneaks into the playoffs due to the hitting of Cano or Seager, I could see them getting votes. It's how Pedroia won his MVP. Either that or it just goes to Mike Trout if the other MVP candidates continue to not hit.
I wonder if Hanley, Papi, Pedey have hurt Betts' chances with voters and if Trumbo has hurt Machado?
Altuve has fallen off in the last month- .200/.238/.389 in the last 28 days.
Trout has raked- .370/.485/.605 in the last 28 days.
Altuve has fallen off in the last month- .200/.238/.389 in the last 28 days.
Trout has raked- .370/.485/.605 in the last 28 days.
I've got to imagine that Sunday night's defensive performance by Betts is going to have a bigger impact with voters than it will on his metrics. Multiple spectacular catches in a tightly contested national prime time game that basically kills off your hated rivals...don't sportswriters eat that stuff up?
It'll be forgotten about by next week, and Hanley's hot streak, fantastic as it is, hasn't inflated his overall numbers enough to get into the conversation.
Right now it's got to be Trout, garbage team around him and all.
Call me jaded but I feel like the 'intangibles' stuff counts a lot more for NY players.
I'd be really surprised if any Red Sox gets a single higher vote than Betts, though I guess you can't discount the Papi farewell tour. Same goes for Trumbo/Machado. Then again, there are a lot of morons with votes, so who knows.
Seems like if making the playoffs isn't important to a voter, than Trout is the pick. But as long as we live in a world where they look at that, gotta figure Mookie has the best chance of the other guys (Machado/Altuve/Donaldson) just because he plays in a big market and has gotten a ton of attention, plus is 4.5-5 tool player, so he does something everyone likes. Power/speed combo who also makes spectacular diving catches? Sounds good to me.
If the media liked him, Hanley Ramirez would probably garner some MVP votes too. He has been huge for the Sox of late and has had many clutch hits.
What would it take for Ortiz to have a legitimate MVP shot? A hot streak could get him to 40 hr, 130 RBI, and .320 BA, traditional MVP flashy counting stats. 3rd in OBP, 1st in SLG, OPS, doubles could appeal to other voters who at least go *that* deep into stats. Add in the final year story and slumps from the other candidates could do it.
How can you not vote for Trout? He's been heads and shoulders ahead of everyone else, and his value has come from all facets of the game. He's even stealing bases at a high clip even though it's obvious that he's not as fast as he was when he came up.
How can you say "head and shoulders above everyone else"? Trout's and Betts' offensive numbers are pretty similar. Toss is Betts' base running and defense this year and a pretty damn good argument can be made for him winning the award, leaving alone the fact that one plays on a 1st place team and the other on a last place team.
I am open to you trying to convince me otherwise, but I don't see anything much more than two very similar players on very different teams. The MVP race is a very tight one ATM.
Trout is a win and a half ahead in fWAR and 1.2 wins ahead in bWAR. Trout's wOBA is even ahead of Ortiz's. He's been mashing the ball and getting on base at a ridiculous clip.
Trout's OPS+ is 174, Betts' is 130, on the basepaths they're pretty even according to the metrics. Mookie is the better defender but I don't think it closes the gap on Trout's huge advantage with the bat.
Which team they play for isn't relevant, IMO, to who has been the better player this year. I would also generally heavily discount defensive metrics as suggested by many sabermetricians, which means Mookie's total value is even lower.
Trout's OPS+ is 174, Betts' is 130, on the basepaths they're pretty even according to the metrics. Mookie is the better defender but I don't think it closes the gap on Trout's huge advantage with the bat.
Which team they play for isn't relevant, IMO, to who has been the better player this year. I would also generally heavily discount defensive metrics as suggested by many sabermetricians, which means Mookie's total value is even lower.
Trout is the best player in baseball. But this is about the "Most Valuable Player", not "best player". Whether that's fair or not, I'm not to judge. And what constitutes "valuable"? Eye of the beholder, isn't it?
IMO, this wouldn't be a case of a player getting "robbed" if Betts won it over Trout, even though Trout is a better player. Mookie has been an incredible player on a likely division-winning team, putting up eye-popping stats across the board. There would be nothing wrong with him being the MVP.
IMO, this wouldn't be a case of a player getting "robbed" if Betts won it over Trout, even though Trout is a better player. Mookie has been an incredible player on a likely division-winning team, putting up eye-popping stats across the board. There would be nothing wrong with him being the MVP.
Last edited:
I agree that Trout is the better offensive player right now. I just don't agree that he is head and shoulders above Mookie and the obvious MVP choice, all things considered.
Fortunately for Betts, the voters tend to like counting stats and winning teams.
Unfortunately for Betts, I think there has been a lot of outcry over Trout getting robbed the past few years, which may increase his votes this year. He probably should have at least 3 MVP trophies by now.
If Mookie continues his pace, and the Sox win the East, I think he wins MVP.
Personally I think the best player should win. But setting that debate aside, how amazing is it that Betts has turned into an 8.5 WAR player? I knew he was going to be good, but he's blown away my brightest expectations. Even if he regresses, it seems realistic to project that he'll have a better career than Pedroia. And to think that a year and a half ago, Felger and Mazz were beating a drum to trade him for Hamels.
I'd still be voting for Trout, but that's no slight to Mookie. He's become a far better player than I was anticipating, even though I was anticipating him being a very good player.I just said to someone else that a year ago, I'd have included Betts in a package with some solid prospects to get Trout. There's no way I'd do that anymore.
Explain to me how the best player could not be the most valuable.
Bad teams draw value from players.
Value to a team is not linear. The difference between 75 and 80 wins is much smaller than the difference between 87 and 92, especially if the latter causes the team to make, instead of miss, the playoffs. So it's not that the player on the 80 win team isn't valuable, it's that the 5 wins he generates make less of a difference to that team than the 5 wins from the player on the 92 win team.
It's an individual award. This player provided five wins in each instance. The rest has to do with the roster his FO surrounded him with.
Thank you.
I've always understood the MVP award to be for the best player in each eague, regardless of team they play for, how much they are paid, or the color of their underwear.
It seems that most get hung up on the "valu" part of valuable.
Flip it around. A player on a worse team, a team generating less wins per roster spot, is actually more valuable to each team's win than a player on a more talented roster which is drawing the components that lead to its wins from positive contributions spread out across more of its roster.
Said differently, Trout is responsible for a greater percentage of his team's wins than Mookie is for his team. You can spin this any way you want. At the end of the day Trout has had, unquestionably, the better season. Hanging Mookie's candidacy on the fact that he happens to be on a much better team is, well, an argument rooted in an emotional attachment to a narrative, not an objective look at each player.
I always thought it tied into beliefs about a player being clutch. The good player on the good team has proven he can be good in important moments. The good player on the bad team isn't playing under the same pressure.
How does this apply to players who have played exceptionally on good teams in prior seasons, but are currently playing exceptionally for a bad team?
I didn't say I believed it. It just appeared to me to be part of the logic. Hitting .330 with ten homers down the stretch in a pennant race is taken to show more ability or clutchiness than doing the same without any pressure.
It's still a relevant question whether you believe it or not. I can't imagine this is a prevalent mindset since it requires a willingness to believe that a player who is great and an MVP one season isn't "clutch enough" or "good enough when it matters" to be worthy of consideration the next simply because the team around them is far less competitive. I think the mindset is more that the contributions just matter more when the team is in contention because the team isn't "wasting" the performance by not having a shot to go to the playoffs. I disagree with that mindset, but that seems more likely than a belief that one player is more clutch or whatever than another.
Aren't these the same guys who have dogged great players like Ted Williams for not being good in the playoffs? In the old guard, there very much seemed to be a strain of this guy can't hit when it counts.
I'm guessing that most of the people voting when Ted Williams was playing probably aren't voting today. 
I know, silly. But a lot of them are of that age when there was a sense that some players rose to the occasion. I can't help but think that plays a part of it. In fact, I remember reading that argument in an old Globe or SI article I'll try to find.I'm guessing that most of the people voting when Ted Williams was playing probably aren't voting today.
I love this argument, as it usually indicates the crafter has never played for a shitty team where the pressure to "just win one" is suffocating.
I mean, it's not like YOU SUCK has never been used to motivate anyone, anywhere - nor is fear of being labeled a "loser" much of a thing at all.
Marciano never lost nothin! You come down here to Brockton and say that to my face, tough guy!
I'm not championing the argument. Just noting I've seen it as an undercurrent for why sports writers like to vote for MVP candidates from winning teams.
Yeah, it's kinda like the Oscars. At the end of the year you have a general idea who the candidates are and you start mining around for a narrative.
"Oh shit wait Pacino's never won, I think it has to be his year."
"The A's have won 22 games in a row and Miggy had walk-offs in like five of them, it's His Year."
Doesn't always work that way, but yeah any year there is no surefire, obvious candidate I think Marciano's right. Human nature I guess, doesn't mean it makes the most sense.
"Oh shit wait Pacino's never won, I think it has to be his year."
"The A's have won 22 games in a row and Miggy had walk-offs in like five of them, it's His Year."
Doesn't always work that way, but yeah any year there is no surefire, obvious candidate I think Marciano's right. Human nature I guess, doesn't mean it makes the most sense.
You see these sorts of arguments all the time. I find it very surprising that people here are finding it surprising that a large number of sports writers think this way. It's changing, sure, but we didn't all just suddenly forget everything we read on Fire Joe Morgan, right? Or that we have a dedicated Cafardo thread?
No.
Some writers will be taken in by his story this year, but an equal number will dig in their heels harder and refuse to consider voting for a DH.
Plus, Trout (and, to a lesser extent, Betts) give all the anti-DH people viable cover. He would have to dramatically out-perform those guys over the remaining games (as in: hit .400 with 10 more HRs) to have a real shot. And even then, unless he's won the triple crown, he'll lose.
I expect lots of people will throw him a consolation 3rd place vote, tho.
Some writers will be taken in by his story this year, but an equal number will dig in their heels harder and refuse to consider voting for a DH.
Plus, Trout (and, to a lesser extent, Betts) give all the anti-DH people viable cover. He would have to dramatically out-perform those guys over the remaining games (as in: hit .400 with 10 more HRs) to have a real shot. And even then, unless he's won the triple crown, he'll lose.
I expect lots of people will throw him a consolation 3rd place vote, tho.
Last edited:
If anything, the late season heroics of HR and DO may pull some votes away from Betts, especially among those who might be on the fence for Betts, either with Trout or anyone of the other 3).
Besides, isn't it in the Sox best interest (and thus ours) for Betts NOT to win the MVP from a negotiating POV on a long-term deal?
Besides, isn't it in the Sox best interest (and thus ours) for Betts NOT to win the MVP from a negotiating POV on a long-term deal?
Apologies ahead of time if this is tongue and cheek. They know he's one of the best players in baseball regardless of whether he wins the award. MVP awards won't trump bottom line market value, and nor should they since the award is at the mercy of voters who don't watch him play day to day. It won't factor into arbitration numbers either. Though, I guess it's possible for MVP incentives to factor in on a small monetary level.
Ortiz obviously won't win, and he has been an offensive legend and as clutch as ever, but I'd love voters to progress beyond offense (and apply that to HoF voting which is another argument). There is just no replacing Betts and Trouts' elite overall skillsets to win ballgames in other ways.
I dont think that the MVP has often corrolated perfectly to rate stats, and even less to sabermetrics. I would personally have no problem voting for Papi despite understanding that Trout (or several other fielding hitters) top his impact toward wins.
I think the idea of the MVP is to honor the player thats is most valuable to his team, potentially in the litterary sense of that term. In a year like Ortiz is having, I think its actually highly appropriate to step back from the quantitative and into the narrative of baseball.
I would not be suprised if a fair amount of baseball writers agree.
I think the idea of the MVP is to honor the player thats is most valuable to his team, potentially in the litterary sense of that term. In a year like Ortiz is having, I think its actually highly appropriate to step back from the quantitative and into the narrative of baseball.
I would not be suprised if a fair amount of baseball writers agree.
Value in terms of WAR is linear, but value in terms of "World Series Win Probability Added" is non-linear. If Mike Trout and Mookie Betts both go two for five with a home run and a double, they've added the same WAR, but Mookie increases the chance the Sox win the world series by, let's say, 0.2% whereas Trout adds exactly 0.00% (since the Angels have been eliminated).
Last edited:
I get where your coming from, but my counter would be this if either Papi or Betts were hurt before opening day this year:
The downgrade from Papi at DH would probably be some rotation of Young and player X who needed a spell.
The downgrade from Betts in RF would be Chris Young and Brock Holt with some Brentz sprinkled in at the corners until Bentendo was ready. That's obviously a hit on offense, but the huge hit on defense would also be a major factor, not to mention missing one of the best baserunners in baseball.
The depth in the OF was pretty dire for a month or so. Losing Betts would have been more devastating to this teams chances IMO.