NL MVP 2010!

pujols

some other asshole

pat burrell

I'm not fond of first basemen dominating this award, but I went Pujols-Votto-Gonzalez, in front of Halladay.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2010-batting-leaders.shtml

VOTTOOOOOOOoooooo.........

Pujols a close 2nd.

Votto. I haven't a clue how WAR is calculated, so maybe someone can give me a quick explanation of this: Votto finished ahead of Pujols in BA (12 points), OBP (10 points), and Slugging (4 points), yet Pujols has the higher WAR on baseballreference.com by a full game--he even has a higher Offensive WAR by half-a-game. Is Pujols' defense that much better? (I wouldn't have thought the difference between two first basemen would counteract a clean sweep of the offensive slash categories.) Is it park-related? I don't really get it. To me, you can make an argument for Halladay over either of them, but I don't see the rationale for picking Pujols over Votto.

"a clean sweep of the offensive slash categories" by a hairsbreadth!

yes, Cincy is more hitter-friendly:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

One of them was close, the other two were 10-points-plus. The point is, if you lead in all three, it seems odd that you wouldn't at least have a higher offensive WAR. And if you play the same position in the same division, and your team wins, it seems equally odd that you wouldn't win the MVP. But I'll take your word for it that the park-factor is significant enough to account for some of that.

Missed your link...Cincinnati's neutral; St. Louis is a pitcher's park, but not an extreme one. That wouldn't be enough to change my vote.

I don't know why, if you accept those numbers and Pujols being somewhat superior defensively.

I expect "being on a winner" (that played 3 extra games as a result) will sway the riters, as usual.

I'd still go with Votto too. It's close enough that you can use any rationale to pick one guy over the other, really.

yes, I had him 2nd and it is close. By no means a bad pick like the year Justin Morneau won (or even worse, Terry Pendleton).

...but I think Gonzalez is closer to Votto than Votto is to Pujols.

Or Jimmy Rollins! xp

oui

Just out of curiosity, I looked up their splits. Votto hit much better on the road than at home, Pujols hit better at home (it was close). Here's a comparison of their road numbers:

Votto -- .349/.452/.641, 19 homers, 57 RBIs
Pujols -- .291/.392/.599, 25 homers, 64 RBIs

Unless you want to pull a 180 and argue for the importance of RBIs, that's a pretty clear advantage to Votto in neutral parks. So I'm not sure you can argue that his overall edge in BA/OBP/SP has to do with slightly favorable conditions at home.

Defense, maybe there's a clear advantage--I'm a lazy baseball fan who doesn't pay enough attention to defensive contribution. But you can play with the offensive numbers any number of ways, and to me it still comes down to the fact that Votto beat Pujols in all three percentage categories, and his team won.

"team won" is an absolute nonstarter for me -- I don't think there should be an individual award for Best Player with the Best Teammates.

Actually, come to think of it the patron saint of Bad MVPs should be Juan Gonzalez.

Well, that's a another argument. Typically, I'm old-fashioned: all else being equal (and with Votto and Pujols, all else is pretty close to being equal), my MVP vote would go to the guy whose team won.

I'm on my way out, but one last thing. Since there was a divisional race involved, I thought it would be worth looking up their Sept./Oct. numbers:

Votto -- .308/.429/.571, 5 homers, 16 RBI
Pujols -- .293/.433/.586, 7 homers, 23 RBi

Close, but advantage to Pujols. So if you wanted to factor in that, that would be fair.

except that it was clear by Labor Day that the Cards were done.

Also, all the games count.

I agree with clemenza -- when two guys are so closely matched statistically, I'm fine with using team performance as a tiebreaker.

pujols came to the plate 36 more times than votto, is a slightly better defensive player, and plays in a slightly worse park for hitting, hence the WAR difference. either of them is a fine choice imo, it's a tiny difference

"Is it park-related?"

Yes. Great American is about a 1/10 of run more favorable to hitters than Busch has been over the last couple of years. That's not insignificant. Over the course of entire season WAR thinks that's about a win and a half of offensive benefit for Votto.

That said when the difference between two players comes down to Park Factors (and one of them isn't playing in Coors or Petco) I think you're probably splitting hairs. Either of these guys is a fine pick.

Worth mentioning, I think (for those who take position into consideration): Posey finished sixth in games played for NL catchers.

[i]except that it was clear by Labor Day that the Cards were done.[i]

True--so I looked at what they did in August, when the Reds went from half-a-game behind (Aug. 1) to eight games ahead (Sept. 1):

Votto -- .333/.423/.600, 5 homers, 25 RBI
Pujols -- .379/.453/.777, 11 homers, 23 RBI

I report this in the interest of fairness--I was hoping for more ammunition, but when the Cardinals were falling apart, it definitely wasn't Pujols' fault.

I don't think you are going to convince Morbs by posting slash stats and RBIs.

I do think you have to look at a variety of things, which is what I've tried to do--slash stats, traditional stats, home/road, how they hit during the key month of the race, whose team ultimately won, etc. (Conceding my blind spot when it comes to defensive stats--but thinking that the difference between two first basemen is just not going to be as critical as it would be if shortstops or catchers or centre fielders were involved.) Morbius is choosing Longoria and Pujols as his MVPs, which may or may not coincidentally be the two guys who lead their leagues in WAR. To me, if you're going to let that take the place of looking at a variety of things--if you work from that assumption that WAR does all that work for you--then why not just cancel the voting and the MVP altogether? You can just give a year-end award for the player with the highest WAR.

I think that would probably beat how the award is currently handed out...

I'm thinking we could even cancel the postseason; just declare the team with the highest regular-season Pythagorean differential the winner.

WAR is controversial in the community, not least because Total Zone and UZR are of debatable value - people overvaluing WAR leads to laughable crap like Dave Cameron declaring in his particular Cameronian way that Nyjer Morgan is equal in value to Adam Dunn. I almost feel like you'd do just as well looking at VORP or wOBA and hashing out via discussion your thoughts on defense, positional adjustments etc. I mean, you're gonna have those arguments anyway.

That would beat sportswriters picking the best team though, right?

Doesn't VORP already include positional adjustments?

xpost: Good point--maybe that was a bad analogy. My basic point: disagreeing over who's MVP is fun. It's central to fandom. The last thing I want is an all-omniscient stat that eliminates any room for that. (As I've learned from past disagreements along these lines, you or someone else will now tell me that no one is calling for such a stat. I do sometimes wonder.)

why would that be a bad thing, exactly? isn't that the point of statistics? shouldn't we want the most complete statistic we can make up?

Yes and no. If it comes at the cost of eliminating legitimate room for difference of opinion, then no, I don't want it. Maybe you do, and that's fine. I don't.

why would that be a bad thing, exactly? isn't that the point of statistics? shouldn't we want the most complete statistic we can make up?

― avoyoungdro's number (k3vin k.), Sunday, October 17, 2010 6:46 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark

Beep boop I am a robot

Morbius is choosing Longoria and Pujols as his MVPs, which may or may not coincidentally be the two guys who lead their leagues in WAR

It was a factor, but no, not the only one. As was hinted at above, look who led the Fangraphs version of WAR:

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=n&type=6&season=2010&month=0

OH NO NOW WE HAVE TO ARGUE ABOUT WHICH VERSION OF WAR IS BETTER! DAMN YOU UBER-STATISTICS AND YOUR INCONSISTENCIES!

I vote the non-Eric Burdon version btw.

Wow, I had to google that name and I had no idea the guy from the Animals was also in War! That's cray-cray. (:

It was a factor, but no, not the only one.

Fair enough--I knew it wasn't your only consideration anyway, as your 2-3-4 picks didn't jibe with the WAR list from baseballreference I was looking at.

The post-Eric Burdon version clobbers the "Spill the Wine" version--except for maybe "Spill the Wine," which can hold its own. As for the other two WARs, is it fair to question a metric that produces two different lists? Or is it just passing through its Beta/VHS phase, before one version is eventually settled on?

Well, the B-R model uses Total Zone (which I prefer) and the FG model uses UZR.

What is the BP version using now? It's some proprietary zone based defensive thing, right?

you ppl did see the sabermetric Simpsons ep from last week at some point?

Hah I didn't. Did they make fun of this very same subject?

No, but Lisa was using advanced metrics as Little League coach vs Bart's basestealing style. also Bill James: "I made baseball as much fun as doing your taxes."

Lol

clemenza stop getting butthurt when people disagree with you

you: these guys had pretty comparable years, yet i expect voters to choose the player whose team made the postseason. weird!
alex: not really, sportswriters be loving team players/winners and that's how it's always been

citizens bank is only a 'hitters park' in that it inflates home runs, overall scoring is about neutral there

ditto for great american in cincy

I don't see Clemenza displaying any "butthurt" here, he's making reasonable points and arguing his position fairly and competently.

yeah, I don't think clemenza is butthurt. just wrong :)

when in doubt give it to the guy that doesn't already have a mess of them.

clemenza stop getting butthurt when people disagree with you

"Butthurt"--is that like a word? Jesus...

When someone disagrees with me--civilly, rather than snarkily or contemptuously--I think I almost always take my time to explain myself on here, often at length, and in a measured tone.

Votto is the feelgood story of the year. Cincy was able to win the division and contend for the first time in what seems to be decades. It's hard to imagine how the Reds would have done without him.

Pujols had a subpar year (declining at age 29-30?!?!?!?!) and the Cardinals were a bit of a non-story.

Did Votto ever hit an infield pop up this year?

when in doubt give it to the guy that doesn't already have a mess of them.

This used to be known as "Bonds fatigue" (Jeff Kent thanks u).

Pujols played hurt for a good chunk of the year and led the league in WAR and OPS+. That's a pretty good subpar year.

Pujols has played hurt his entire career iirc! zzzzz

i am being facetious but change that shit up a little.

LIKE THE OLD DAYS

give it to Andre Dawson

Jeff Kent thanks u

Terry Pendleton, too.

One more thought, while I don't have any students in the room. If you have two hypothetical players with more or less identical stats, I don't see what's wrong with defaulting to the guy whose teams wins. Not if you take the words "most valuable player" literally. To use this year as an example, if there's a Pujols but no Votto, I'd say there's a decent chance St. Louis would have won the division. If there's a Votto but no Pujols, the Cardinals may or may not have fallen to third place. If you accept that that's a reasonable scenario--and maybe you don't--then you're looking at the value of the difference between first and second against the value of the difference between second and third. That's an old argument that's been made a million times. But I don't think that makes it invalid--not if you don't view "most valuable" and "player of the year" as necessarily meaning the same thing.

clemenza, the point of a lot of these stats are to show how much they contributed to their team winning games, or how they would have contributed all things being equal. to me, including the team's outcome is completely arbitrary - it's not pujols' fault that his teammates are worse than votto's teammates!

i guess my main point is that i don't think pujols was any less 'valuable' to the cardinals than votto was to the reds, just because the reds happened to finish in front of the cardinals. that criterion is kind of out of the player's control, which is why i like to stick to who played better (which again is debatable! would not be mad with votto winning mvp)

a player is valuable by being good. ie, MVP = Best Player

The only thing I'd say is that I don't think all value can be measure equally. Player A might have marginally more raw value than Player B, but if Player B's value meant a divisional title, and player A's meant the difference between second and third (maybe even between second and last, since they both amount to the same thing in the end anyway, no postseason), I'd opt for Player B's value when handing out the MVP. Does that involve a measure of luck, and other things beyond the player's control? Sure--just like getting to and winning a World Series involves a lot of luck and things beyond a team's control. If Team A wins the Series because half the starting lineup had career years, while Team B from their own division--a better team on paper--had a nightmarish series of injuries and other unexpected developments, we just say that's part of the game; we don't (or at least shouldn't) start complaining that their win isn't the correct outcome. To me, it's the nature of the MVP award that there's a inherent bias towards players on winning, preferably division-winning, teams. There are other awards--Sporting News' Player of the Year, Silver Slugger, etc.--in place for a more objective recognition of statistical excellence.

Anyway, we're at an impasse here. This is an argument that has been going on for years.

"To me, it's the nature of the MVP award that there's a inherent bias towards players on winning, preferably division-winning, teams."

That's fine, but if you are saying that then you shouldn't be pretending it's some crazy revelation that Halladay/Votto are going to win their respective rewards by landslides! It's just the only logical outcome of your argument (an argument most of the MVP/Cy voters hold to.)

"Pujols had a subpar year (declining at age 29-30?!?!?!?!) and the Cardinals were a bit of a non-story."

Subpar compared to his insane last two, but still one of his better offensive years overall because he ended up getting so many PAs.

He never said it was a crazy revelation, he said it was interesting. You're acting like the only possible reactions are "cynical boredom" or "wide-eyed bewilderment"

It's "interesting" that voters feel exactly the same way he does? Yeah that does seem like pretty non-noteworthy to me.

Well, no--I promise you, I don't pretend. I pointed out a number of reasons I'd vote for Votto: higher slugging pct., higher on-base pct., higher batting average, better road numbers. The fact that his team won is one more factor in his favor. I could also run down a number of reasons I'd vote for Halladay. To say "inherent bias" does not imply "huge inherent bias"; it's one factor among many. (And for what it's worth...You'd have to check this year-by-year, but I wouldn't be surprised if, historically, the better-team argument has worked against starting pitchers. If two starting pitchers had virtually identical records, wouldn't sportswriters often go for the guy on the lesser team, on the assumption that he had less offense and defense supporting him? (Not talking about Felix this year--years where the two starting pitchers would have comparable wins, winning pct., and ERA...you know, the dinosaur stuff that simpletons like me still notice.) I don't know--you'd have to check that. I'd say the bells-and-whistles for Halladay this year would be more the perfect game, and the fact that he pitched a two-hitter in the clincher, than the fact that his team won. (Even though there's a bit of a tautology in the last two.)

Anytime you want to stop going around in circles on this, just say so. You are convincing me, and I'm not convincing anyone.

(Princess Tam-Tam: whoever you are, thanks for the support. It's generally--not always, but generally--me against everyone in here.)

Why is it so outrageous that he thinks it's an interesting phenomenon? Why can't he say that without you rolling your eyes and being a dickhead about it? I don't understand why this calls for an onslaught of snark. Are you on your period or something?

Oops--you aren't convincing me, and I'm not convincing anyone. One day I'll post something without a typo.

Even the correction is misitalicized...I think you get what I'm saying.

"Why is it so outrageous that he thinks it's an interesting phenomenon?"

I didn't say it was outrageous, but yeah again it's definitely not remotely noteworthy. I was/am slightly surprised that he felt the need to post about it.

Onslaught of snark is a fascinating why of describing my pretty mild incredulity at this. I am having a bit of a seasonal allergy thing though btw, but I don't know that it's relevant.

Alex: you're posts have been mild, and I haven't minded discussing this.

If this year is as unnoteworthy as you say, then I'd ask you to find another year where a league a) had two (de facto) primary MVP candidates and two (de facto) primary Cy Young candidates, b) who were matched closely enough statistically that we start looking at marginal park factors, and c) who produced lopsided award votes anyway. If you find a few such years, I really will retract my point that this is an interesting year. It's interesting to me for the simple reason that, in 40 years of watching baseball, I don't remember such a year.

Which is assuming, obviously, that the votes are as lopsided as I think they'll be. If they aren't, then I'm wrong right from the start.

well then you're finding interesting the fact that we happen to have multiple such cases, not that voters are going for the guy on the winning team

I guess we need to define lopsided but I think the NL MVP award was pretty lopsided (20 first place votes for Howard to 12 for Pujols) given that by every metric Pujols had a much better year. That's just off the top of my head though.

xpost: I don't follow you...What I'm saying is that if there are multiple such cases, then Alex is right, it's not interesting. I'm saying I can't remember even one year like this, which is why I find it interesting. And that's why I posted in the first place.

Howard/Pujols...I'd have to check that one. They probably weren't that close, though, right?--I'm sure Pujols was significantly better across the board. Didn't Howard pretty much win for his big HR/RBI totals? I don't see that as a good parallel to what we have this year.

Admittedly I think the reasoning that year was woo hoo homers and rbis not woo hoo two more wins by the Phillies but I think it fits none the less.

Neil Young comments on this thread: "inneresting."

To fit, to me, it's got to be two players who produce almost a statistical dead-heat. And Pujols is always going to be much better than Howard.

Anyway, I'd better go mark spelling list #3...Howard beating Pujols--the big HR/RBI guy beating the year's best sabermetric player--happens constantly; if that was what Votto/Pujols was about, there'd be nothing interesting about it. If you go back to my original post from 73 days ago, that wasn't what I said I found interesting about this year's races.

Okay here's one: 2005. Pujols and Lee. Same position. Very similar rate and counting stats. Pujols got 18 1st place votes and Lee 1. Similarly for the Cy, Carpenter and Willis had fairly similar stats, but Carpenter outpolled Willis 19 to 11 in first place votes.

I don't think Carpenter/Willis fits the way I expect the Halladay/Wainwright vote to go: their stats were fairly close, with most of the advantages to Carpenter (based on a quick glance), and the final vote was 132-112 for Carpenter. I'd say that's pretty close, and reflective of the years they had. You might have one with Pujols/Lee, though. Lee had the higher batting and slugging average, yet was blown out by the guy who played on the winning team. The only obvious difference that jumps out at me is that, whereas I think that most of us would agree that Joey Votto is legitimately a rising star, I don't think anybody seriously thought of Derek Lee as a great player in 2005, just a good one who'd been around for a while having a career year. But you're right, that might be a pretty good example of what I'm talking about.

The two most outlandlishly provocative statements I've ever made on this board: I find the NL awards races interesting this year, and I was glad I bought a used copy of Up in the Air. Sometimes I'm just, like, out of control.

One last long post, and then, provided no one jumps on here and says things about my mother--and I wouldn't put that past a couple of you--I'm going to let this go. I used to get bogged down in these kinds of arguments with a music writer friend. We'd start out arguing general stuff--whether or not the Replacements were overrated, for instance--and before long we'd be picking over the minutiae of what another music writer meant by theoretical hallways he'd constructed. (Don't ask.) Exhausting.

Summing up: Yesterday I wrote that I expected lots of fairly tiny advantages for Votto and Halladay to translate into lopsided MVP and Cy Young votes, and that--brace yourself, it gets ugly here--I found that interesting. Alex countered, as I understand him, that some of those tiny advantages fall one way, some the other, but that they're more or less moot in the end; Votto and Halladay are going to win because their teams won, and that this happens all the time. I asked for some comparable examples, and Alex suggested 2005.

I can sort of see the Lee/Pujols parallel, but the more I look at it, the less similar it seems. For the slash stats, Votto edged Pujols in all three, by 10, 12, and 4 points. With Lee and Pujols, the slash stats are split, and the margin in one instance is much larger: Pujols gets OBP by 12 points, Lee takes BA by 5 points and slugging by 53 points. Based on that alone, I'm not sure it's that good a parallel to this year. Focusing just on the more general point, which in the context of what we're arguing about is that Pujols won primarily because his team won, I think there were large mitigating factors:

1) What I pointed out above, that Pujols is obviously a much greater player than Lee.
2) The Reds and Cardinals, at least till mid-August, were pitted in a head-to-head battle for their division, and the Reds went on to win--small advantage Votto. In 2005, the Cards won 100 games and the Cubs were a sub-.500 fourth-place team. To give the award to Lee would have been closer to what happened with Dawson than anything this year, a vote that the writers still get grief over.
3) To me, a huge factor in why Pujols won such a lopsided vote that year: he'd just come off consecutive 4-2-2-3 MVP finishes behind Bonds. Bonds was out for 2005, Pujols had his usual brilliant year. There was no way Pujols wasn't going to win that vote--even if Lee and Pujols have the same season, and the Cubs win the division, I believe Pujols would have won almost as resoundingly.

There's a fourth factor that might support the idea that 2005 and 2010 are mirrors: in 2005, Andruw Jones ended up in the middle of Pujols and Lee in the MVP vote, just like Gonzalez could end up in the middle of Votto and Pujols.

So: I think it's a somewhat good parallel, but not all that good. Also, I said that I thought it was interesting that I expected both the MVP and Cy Young races in the NL this year to follow the small-margins-equal-lopsided-votes pattern. And if you don't think Carpenter/Willis is a good match for Halladay/Wainwright, which I don't, then automatically 2005 isn't a good parallel for 2010.

As I wrote yesterday, if the votes don't turn out to be lopsided, then what I find interesting is completely invalidated. But if it's a close vote, then I'd also say that Alex's point--that sportswriters automatically go for the guy from the winning team--is undermined.

Votto

I think Alex's more general point was that sportswriters are inclined to vote for the guy with the best "story" behind him. That doesn't mean that they always vote for the guy on the winning team, because of there are plenty of other stories that will work -- like Pujols winning in 2005 after being a perennial runner-up. Rollins won in 2007 because a) the Phillies' comeback to win the NL East was a huge story, b) Pujols and Howard (two power-hitting 1B's) had won the previous two years and people wanted something different, c) everyone collectively convinced themselves that Rollins was an exciting player who energized the Phillies' offense, etc.

Yeah NoTime has it right. I guess I thought the point I thought you were trying to make clemenza was "isn't weird that these two guys are pretty close statistically but the MVP vote won't be close at all" and the point I, and I think most everyone else, was trying to make is that this happens fairly frequently and the reasons are basically narrative (not stat) related (X was on a winning team and Y wasn't, X's team needed X more than Y's team needed Y, Y won it Z years in a row so let's give it to X, etc) and that sportwriter groupthink is pretty strong where those narratives are concerned so it's not surprising that these votes end up being more lopsided than the stats might lead you to believe they should be.

When you present it that way, that makes sense. I guess I was focused on just one part of your argument.

I'm going to let this go.

Easier said than done. From one of Alex's earlier posts way upthread: "But the reason is the vote is going to be near unanimous isn't really the minute statistical differences or whatever in favor of Halladay/Votto, it's that both those players played for teams that won their respective divisions!" So you may have meant narrative in a larger sense, but it didn't come across that way; that statement seems pretty unambiguous to me.

That's the narrative in this case. Either way my point was the result is unsurprising since there is a pretty clear "reason" why this isn't going to be close and it's not that uncommon for statistically close players to result in not close MVP votes.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

who cares it's just the NL

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.