Defense = Overrated; Or, the 2007 Post-Season Awards Thread

Sorry Troy Four-Tool-owitzki, you've been Brauned.

I was shocked how many pundits went for Tulo. Sure Braun's D sucks, but not enough to make up that offensive gap.

However, I'm with Keith Law: Guthrie should've been the AL choice, not Pedroia.

Guthrie didn't even get a POINT? wtf? He was eligible, no? Delmon Young 2nd is terrible.

Win Shares says Tulo was the best defensive shortstop in baseball this year, what do BP's defensive stats say?

I don't think BP *has* any individual defensive stats of their own; but Jim Baker just ran a column on Tulo:

Taking into account his outstanding defense (46/24 FRAR/FRAA), the quality of his rookie season goes way beyond mere modern comparisons. In fact, his WARP3 of 10.8 is the 15th-best rookie showing since 1876.

While I think Tulowitzki had the better overall season than Braun (who posted a 4.8 WARP3), the Brewers' freshman third baseman was not without his historical charms. For one thing, his VORPr of .498 is the best by any rookie (350 PA minimum) since 1959. Braun’s EqA of .326 ranks 21st among rookies since 1876--which, of course, means everybody who ever played the game; Mark McGwire, Frank Thomas, and Pujols are the only other rookies of the last quarter-century to do better. So, between Braun and Tulowitzki, these were both special seasons in their own ways, so whichever man wins the award will have the weight of history behind him.

I don't understand WARP3, esp combined with TT's Coors advantage.

YAY HEBREW HAMMER

Guthrie not getting a single vote makes no sense at all.

Sheehan (who also pref'd Tulo in NL):

Delmon Young wasn’t the second-best anything in the AL this year—well, he did lead the circuit in outs made—and was a below-average player overall. The writers who voted for him were simply using the wrong tools, such as batting average and RBI, to measure performance.

Worse than that error is the complete absence of the player who led AL rookies in VORP from every single ballot. The Orioles’ Jeremy Guthrie (38.2) was slightly better than the Red Sox’ Daisuke Matsuzaka (37.0) and the Royals’ Brian Bannister (34.9). Matsuzaka had a better strikeout rate in more innings than the other two, and was less supported by his defense. His high ERA (4.40) and poor stretch drive hurt him in the voting, but he was essentially as valuable as any rookie in the league.

The comparison of Guthrie to Bannister, however, is a joke. Guthrie had better marks in ERA, RA, VORP, and Support-Neutral numbers than Bannister did, and in more innings than Bannister threw. He had a much better strikeout rate, strikeout-to-walk ratio, and Stuff score. The only things Bannister did better than Guthrie were not allow home runs and get credited with wins.

al rook vorp:

Guthrie: 38.2
Matsuzaka 37.0
Pedroia 35.9
Bannister 34.9
Okajima 29.3
Willits 15.2
Young 5.7

not even ONE vote for guts? sheesh.

so typical. how did the internet voting go for Guthrie?

came in 4th behind bannister by several hundred, though he had more 1st and 2nd place votes than bannister. matsuzaka was a comfortable second.

Neyer is chatting on ESPN now, I ask Guthrie question.

he dint answer.

Sabathia, comfortably over Beckett:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3108321

LOLLOLLOL

that i did not expect.

I did. More innings, more Ks, only 1 win behind.

plus, Josh is so damn media-friendly.

yeah 40 more more innings is a lot

I bet Wedge would like to have been able to throw back some of CC's innings in May for a few 123s in the playoffs.

You're taking your talking points from Tim Kurkjian!

seriously! after the WS I figured there was no way the majority of them were going to vote for CC.

ballots are submitted before the playoffs though!

oh! again i am learned!

Wedge & Melvin managers of the year.

2 idiots voted for Magglio:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3119020

Unsurprisingly they are located in/near Detroit.

Countdown to Morbs blowup: 3,2, 1

And although my allegiances are known I too am SHOCKED at the third-place finisher.

congrats to the second-best SS in the NL in '07!

Carlos Marmol, Chi, 1

o_O

I've been resigned to that outcome for a long while. But even Holliday would've been a better choice.

Joe Sheehan did his piece today and came up w/ Pujols (9th).

btw Ryan H belongs in the second ten and well behind Utley

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3120573

this is why whenever i read about people using mvp voting to justify hall-of-fame votes i have to lol

Carlos Marmol, Chi, 1

I didn't realize Carlos Marmol's mom was a sportswriter.

Jake Peavy finished 7th!

rollins only won mvp cuz he's a blakk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4uahL_tQWc

Joe Sheehan did his piece today and came up w/ Pujols (9th).

I read that piece, LOL at Sheehan cherry-picking stats and acting shocked that no one agrees with his superior math. Trés typical.

aka ignoring the fact that Pujols' power numbers went down (as did his public profile) and therefore so did the Cardinals' hopes, also that a lot of his improvement happened with Cards out of it -- yeah he's good, I've argued so many times, but Sheehan always argues backwards. plus he goes out of his way to hate on my team so fuck him.

also, honest question that i'm too lazy to wade through all the saberaspects of: isn't shortstop considered a harder fielding position than 3rd base? David Schoenfield on ESPN argues for Wright, which I agree with probably when I'm not being contrary, but says in effect "Rollins won a Gold Glove, but so did Wright, so there." Wright is in fact a great fielder, but how hard could the hot corner be if Ryan Braun can credibly win a ROY award playing poorly there?

Well, WARP isn't exactly a cherry-picking stat, but yeah, I also hate it when somebody crunches numbers in a vacuum and completely neglects "the story" (i.e. pennant races, big stories, etc.). But you're also being too hard on Pujols -- the Cards got back into the race because of him, and slipped out of the race even though he continued raking. Lots of stuff has been said about David Wright playing great down the stretch for the Mets -- would you penalize Wright for "improving when the Mets were out of it"?

The fact that Pujols' numbers were down a bit isn't as important as you make it out to be. It means that he's the best player in the league by a lesser margin than he was last year. Johan Santana's profile hasn't fallen too far just because he was slightly less awesome in 2007 than he was in past years. Anyway, for the IBA's I put Pujols 3rd or 4th, I don't remember.

Can SS be a hard position if Derek Jeter wins Gold Gloves playing there?

Shortstop is harder than third base for all sorts of non-stathead reasons, but I guess any discussion about defense should come down to Fielding Runs Above Replacement. There are fewer chances at 3B compared to SS, so there are fewer chances to field poorly and cost your team runs.

But Pujols can't be the best player in the league by any margin at all, because you only put him 3rd or 4th on your IBA ballot. Since he was so dominant last year, you would have ranked him #1, right? So apparently his power drop, which is real enough, was in fact quite significant BY YOUR OWN ACCOUNT. Quod erat fuckin' demonstrandum.

"Best player in the league" isn't the same as "best player in the league this year". If I'm picking a fantasy (or real) team for next year, I'm taking Pujols #1, no questions asked. OK, so Pujols was the best at his position in the league this year, had a better individual season than anyone except for maybe two or three other guys, but it so happens that he was a bit less awesome than he was the last couple of years (and even that is debatable depending on how you evaluate him).

None of that has any bearing on my personal MVP ballot, because like I said in my last post, I think the MVP discussion is a combination of stats + story. Great year + impact player on contending team + late season dramatics > great for + uninteresting, non-contending team. Rollins doesn't fit into the equation because at least five or six other players clearly had better years than him.

great *year* + uninteresting, non-contending team

Besides, the truly douchey thing about the Sheehan article wasn't his actual argument, it was the way he led off with "I have no idea who the MVP should be, I'm going to figure it out right now." The guy's entire life is baseball, the regular season ended six weeks ago, and we're supposed to believe that he's Mr. Fair and Balanced Arbitrator who hasn't formed an opinion and is totally detached from any and all bias? I like Sheehan, but this was just stupid. And it's not like he brought any new numbers or insight to the MVP discussion that hasn't already been discussed a million times before, often by others on his own website.

Rollins batted .296 with 30 homers, 94 RBIs and 41 steals from the leadoff spot. He led the league in runs (139) and triples (20)...

Holliday, the NL championship series MVP, hit .340 with 137 RBIs -- becoming the third player since 1967 to lead a league in both categories. He also had 36 homers and topped the NL in hits (216), total bases (386) and doubles (50).

How did Holliday not win this?

Coors factor, isn't a shortstop, and didn't say Rockies were the team to beat last January

I'm not sure what to make of this:

"Starting in 2013, players banned for awards if they have bonus clauses"

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3142555

writers making more class war on players.