Mike Trout wins MVP

[Gil Bang 26230]

n/m

[Dennis Taylor 19343]

[Iceman 2978]

Don't have a problem with it.  A vote for Trout is entirely defensible.

Hard to say he made much fucking difference for his team though... how valuable is that?

[VirginiaLonghorn 4902]

Three time winner, with four second place finishes, in eight seasons. Best player in the game. 

[Gil Bang 26230]

1 hour ago, Iceman said:

Don't have a problem with it.  A vote for Trout is entirely defensible.

Hard to say he made much fucking difference for his team though... how valuable is that?

I wonder  how many tickets he sold.  I'll bet he made a difference there. 

[Iceman 2978]

13 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I wonder  how many tickets he sold.  I'll bet he made a difference there. 

Is that a component in the MVP race?

Angels averaged 82% capacity attendance on home slate in 2019.

Astros  averaged 85%.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Iceman

[Johnny Sack 8397]

He’s the best player in baseball.  He’s just on another level from everyone else.  

[Gil Bang 26230]

32 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Is that a component in the MVP race?

Angels averaged 82% capacity attendance on home slate in 2019.

Astros  averaged 85%.

wow, you had to stretch to find that metric.

Angels sucked, and put more asses in the seats than the Astros, who were really, really good.   I don't give a fuck about how many seats went unsold.  It's the ones that sold that count.

[Gil Bang 26230]

30 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

He’s the best player in baseball.  He’s just on another level from everyone else.  

oh, indeed. 

 

[Iceman 2978]

8 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

wow, you had to stretch to find that metric.

Angels sucked, and put more asses in the seats than the Astros, who were really, really good.   I don't give a fuck about how many seats went unsold.  It's the ones that sold that count.

It was easy. Divide average home attendance by stadium capacity...  that's not even considering the difference in MSA populations.

Depends upon on how one defines who the most VALUABLE player is.  

Tickets sold is not a remotely relevant measure, IMHO.

Wanted to reiterate that Trout is more than worthy in consideration for the award, as I stated initially. I disagree that his year was more valuable than Bregman's.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Iceman

[Gil Bang 26230]

2 MLB teams in socal dude. 30 miles apart.   get the fuck out of here with that MSA shit.   We've got two teams.   How far from Houston is the nearest MLB team?  250 miles?

Hell, the Padres are only 90 miles from Anaheim.  

That's 3 MLB teams within 120 miles.  

Edited November 15, 2019 by Gil Bang

[Pimphand 6359]

I for one am glad Trout won over Bregman after that bat carrying douchebaggery in Game 6. Maybe he can focus on not being a cunt next year.

[Pato del Muerto 53451]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

How far from Houston is the nearest MLB team?  

Im going to say Atlanta. 

[Ignatius 4137]

In my meaningless opinion, the MVP should be awarded to the best player in their league, regardless of team performance, WAR, etc.

By that criteria, it’s a miracle Trout only has 3.  He is easily the best player in the game....

[Guest Lobo]

My fellow Stetson Hatter, deGrom takes his second Cy Young Award today.  With just 11 wins...go Hatters!

[Hank Chinaski 6348]

4 hours ago, Ignatius said:

In my meaningless opinion, the MVP should be awarded to the best player in their league, regardless of team performance, WAR, etc.

By that criteria, it’s a miracle Trout only has 3.  He is easily the best player in the game....

I'm with you, but WAR is pretty much the metric that would determine what you're describing. And Trout should have more than 3 - he should have won it in 2012 and 2013 too. 

All that said, this year was interesting because Bregman and Trout were basically tied in WAR (if you average fWAR and bWAR) - though Trout accumulated it in fewer games, meaning that he was more productive on a per-game basis. But...Bregman added value to more games, played 1/3 of the season at SS, etc. It was a coin flip to me, figured it would be close (and it was). 

I love the Astros, but I also like Trout a lot and appreciate him as an all-time talent. In the AL, you have to have a dominant season from start to finish and hope that Trout misses a little time if you want to win that award. Bregman had a great year, but it took him a little while to get going. He didn't really have any bad months, but he was hitting .265 at the all-star break. He was dominant in the second half, but it wasn't quite enough.  

[Beau Vine 55859]

58 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

I'm with you, but WAR is pretty much the metric that would determine what you're describing. And Trout should have more than 3 - he should have won it in 2012 and 2013 too. 

All that said, this year was interesting because Bregman and Trout were basically tied in WAR (if you average fWAR and bWAR) - though Trout accumulated it in fewer games, meaning that he was more productive on a per-game basis. But...Bregman added value to more games, played 1/3 of the season at SS, etc. It was a coin flip to me, figured it would be close (and it was). 

I love the Astros, but I also like Trout a lot and appreciate him as an all-time talent. In the AL, you have to have a dominant season from start to finish and hope that Trout misses a little time if you want to win that award. Bregman had a great year, but it took him a little while to get going. He didn't really have any bad months, but he was hitting .265 at the all-star break. He was dominant in the second half, but it wasn't quite enough.  

WAR is a terrible metric to look at when awarding MVP because OWAR is context-neutral, because it's supposed to be predictive.  We're trying to decide who WAS the most valuable player, so context matters.  Look at RE24 or WPA and add in dWAR if you want.  

Edited November 17, 2019 by Beau Vine

[Hank Chinaski 6348]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

WAR is a terrible metric to look at when awarding MVP because OWAR is context-neutral, because it's supposed to be predictive.  We're trying to decide who WAS the most valuable player, so context matters.  Look at RE24 or WPA and add in dWAR if you want.  

WAR is supposed to be predictive?

[Guest Lobo]

WAR...well what else is it good for?  

i'd like to get into the meat of how deGrom, my fellow Hatter, I think has the fewest wins of any Cy Young winner ever (in terms of starters, not relief pitchers who got the award like the great Guilliermo Hernandez, Bedrosian, et. al.)  Shit, i think Mike Marshall and Rollie Fingers had more wins the years they won it, and compeltely from the bullpen.

[Beau Vine 55859]

38 minutes ago, Hank Chinaski said:

WAR is supposed to be predictive?

OK, maybe that's not the right wording, but it's not supposed to measure what a hitter's actual value was.  If it was, it wouldn't ignore context -- because a guy who batted .500 with RISP *WAS* more valuable than an otherwise equal hitter who it .100 with RISP.  WAR ignores that because it's not a repeatable skill, and to me, that means WAR is trying to measure the future and not the past.  

[youdunnf'dup 2147]

8 hours ago, Ignatius said:

In my meaningless opinion, the MVP should be awarded to the best player in their league, regardless of team performance, WAR, etc.

By that criteria, it’s a miracle Trout only has 3.  He is easily the best player in the game....

It’s the same reason Lebron and MJ didn’t win it every year in their prime. After a certain point, your expectations for them are so high that when another player has a great year, you almost feel obligated to give it to them. I’m kinda surprised Bregman didn’t win it for that very reason. 

[Hank Chinaski 6348]

12 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

OK, maybe that's not the right wording, but it's not supposed to measure what a hitter's actual value was.  If it was, it wouldn't ignore context -- because a guy who batted .500 with RISP *WAS* more valuable than an otherwise equal hitter who it .100 with RISP.  WAR ignores that because it's not a repeatable skill, and to me, that means WAR is trying to measure the future and not the past.  

OK I see what you're saying. But WAR certainly attempts to quantify actual value, not predicted value, by attributing credit based entirely on what is within an individual player's control. Thus, your point about "context-neutral" situations. 

However, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that WAR is a "terrible" metric for assessing value; that is exactly what it is intended to do. And even though it doesn't account for, say, RBI (which is opportunity-dependent), offensive WAR totals are still largely based on: getting on base/not making outs (OBP) and hitting the ball hard (SLG). It doesn't account for situational hitting, but over 162 games the best performers are generally the best performers. 

Not saying that WAR is perfect or that it is all you should consider...you mention situational metrics that are indeed considered...but WAR is anything but a "terrible" metric for assessing value. 

[runthebone 8372]

Trout deserved at least a couple more MVPs. 

[Beau Vine 55859]

7 hours ago, Hank Chinaski said:

OK I see what you're saying. But WAR certainly attempts to quantify actual value, not predicted value, by attributing credit based entirely on what is within an individual player's control. Thus, your point about "context-neutral" situations. 

No, to me, that's not actual value.  If a guy comes up with the game on the line and delivers, that's actual value, even if batting with the game on the line was out of the player's control and completely subject to randomness/fate/whatever.  Hitting better in high-leverage situation wins games, which is what value is, even if it's not a repeatable skill or controllable by the player.  It's not something I would credit the player for going forward, but if we're trying to decide who WAS more valuable, you can't ignore it.  

[Dennis Taylor 19343]

Trout is apparently returning from paternity leave on Monday.  Can you imagine how much of his career Steve Garvey would have missed if 'paternity leave' was a thing then?