Definition of MVP

[DCRounds]

The MVP, in my opinion, should be the player who creates the most wins.
He should have the highest number from the following equation: Games team
won during the season minus games team would have won with an average
player at the MVPs position. Fielding should be included. This is easier
to estimate for a starting pitcher than ahitter. Ron Guidry was 25-3 in
1978. Let me assume that his run support was average. Thus, an average
pitcher would have been 14-14. Thus, he made a difference of 11 wins. I
doubt that Jim Rice meant 11 games to the Red Sox, especially with his
below average fielding.

Where a team finishes in the standings, or even the won-loss record should
have nothing to do with choosing the MVP. A player should not be penalized
because of a poor surrounding cast. Also, this year, should someone on
Houston (first place) be valued higher than someone on Florida (second
place, but a much better record)?

[Ray Kerby]

DCRounds wrote:

I dunno. I was agreeing with the previous sentence when you
said "a player should not be penalized because of a poor
surrounding cast". Did you suddenly change your mind?

But one can also make the potentially stronger argument that
the position in the standings is more important than wins.
Just ask the 1993 Giants about that (103 wins, 2nd place).
If that seems like a reasonable premise, then Mike Piazza
is more valuable as a Dodger (1 game lead) than as a Brave
(6 game lead). If the Braves lost a Piazza-caliber player,
then they would likely still be in first place, but the
Dodgers would definitely be in 2nd place without him.

Of course, the only problem with that argument is, like
you said, that the better players can be overlooked because
they are on a lousy team (like Larry Walker). That is the
problem with calling the award "Most Valuable Player" instead
of something like "Player of the Year". No one agrees on
what "valuable" should mean.

Regards,
Ray Kerby

[Paul Clerico]

Webster's definition of valuable--Of monetary value;
worth a good price. Therefore, "most valuable" would mean the player
worth the most in dollars (not paid the most) and worth the best price.
By the very definition of the award, where the team falls at in the
standings should have nothing to do with who the award should be
presented. If looking at the standings first and then determining who
should win the award is a criteria, then we need to change the name of
the award.

[J. D. Schenker]

In article <5vrpu6$f55$1...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>, my3...@webtv.net
(Paul Clerico) wrote:

I don't think we need to change the name if we don't give the award as you
suggest above. My personal opinion is that the award should go to the
player that helps his team achieve the most success. The player who made
such a difference that the team could not have gotten where they are
without him. I would have a difficult time giving the MVP award to a good
player on a last place team, even if he is far and away the best player in
the league, because the team could have certainly "achieved" last place
without him. Yes, this sucks for good players on bad teams, but how can
you say that the most valuable player in the league is all that valuable
if they can't keep their team out of the bottom of their division? I know
it's rare in baseball for one or two players to carry a team, so it's hard
to give that award to any one player. However, there are cases where that
happens. For instance, with the Seattle Mariners, if they lose either
Griffey or Randy Johnson to injury, they tend to have a much less
successful team. I'm not saying that there are not other good players on
the team, but the loss of either of those two makes a huge difference. It
could make the difference between making and not making the play-offs.
That is my definition of an MVP.

By the way, the American Heritage Diction defines "valuable" as:

1. Having considerable monetary or material value for use or exchange.
2. Of great importance, use, or service.
3. Having admirable or esteemed qualities or characteristics.

I guess my definition of MVP most closely represents definiton #2 above.

[J. D. Schenker]

In article <3421A4...@ttacs.ttu.edu>, "Paul G. Wenthold"
<qe...@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:

> J. D. Schenker wrote:
>
> So a player that is worth two extra wins over a season on a team that
> makes the playoff by one game is more valuable than a guy worth
> 6 extra wins but is on a team that wins by 7 games? Seems pretty
> silly to me to have an individual award depend on the capabilities
> of the players teammates.

It may be silly, but isn't that the way it has been awarded? Take the
All-Star MVP award for example. Alomar hit a two run homer that won the
game, so he got the MVP award. Martinez also hit a home run, but did not
get the award. Why? Partly because someone was on base when Alomar hit
his. And partly because it was the game winner. Did Alomar have control
over either of these situations? Not really, the pitching kept the NL
from scoring any more runs, and he had no control over who got on base
ahead of him. Is this fair? Probably not, but it's the way it is, and I
don't have a problem with it. I see little "objective" criteria used to
judge MVP, and the fact of the matter is, there probably shouldn't be.
Does it really matter if a player helps a team win 50 games instead of 40
in a season? Not as far as obtaining the ultimate goal, to win the World
Series, is concerned.
>
> BTW, who do you pick on a team that makes the playoffs by one
> game? Everyone who is worth more than 2 wins is a viable candidate
> by your definition. Or do you reduce your criteria to "the best player
> on the team that makes the playoffs by the least amount."

I would not necessarily pick anyone on a team that makes the playoffs by
one game. It depends on the situation. I might pick a player on the team
that makes the playoffs by ten games, if that player is worth twenty
games.

>
>
> >I would have a difficult time giving the MVP award to a good
> > player on a last place team, even if he is far and away the best player in
> > the league, because the team could have certainly "achieved" last place
> > without him.
>
>

> But the MVP is an individual award, it is not meant to reward winning
> teams. We already give them championships.

Maybe, but hasn't it been given to players on winning teams lately? Like
I said above, what good does it do for a player on bad team to help them
win a few extra games, when it doesn't result in a play-off appearance?
"Most Valuable" does not equal "best." If I bought one watch that was
worth $10K, but it didn't keep the right time, and bought a second watch
for $10.00 that did, which watch would be more valuable? Which would be
better? The first watch would certainly be worth more, but the second
would be better if I wanted to know what time it was.

>
>
> Yes, this sucks for good players on bad teams, but how can
> > you say that the most valuable player in the league is all that valuable
> > if they can't keep their team out of the bottom of their division?
>

> Easy. Baseball is a team game. Michael Jordan couldn't even
> win a championship until he got some decent players around him.

Michael Jordan plays baseball again? If baseball is a team game, then why
give the MVP award at all? RBI's depend on what teammates do. So do runs
scored. Batters are often rated on these so called objective criteria.
Even if a great player is on a bad team, he may have fewer runs scored and
RBI's simply because of this. So how do you suggest that we rate "the
best player in the league?" Batting average can even depend on what
pitchers a batter faces. If a left-handed batter rarely faces lefties,
then that could give him an advantage over a right hander that faces
everybody. The point is, a great player on a bad team has a disadvantage
all the way around, regardless of whether you use subjective or objective
criteria.

>
> I know
> > it's rare in baseball for one or two players to carry a team, so it's hard
> > to give that award to any one player.
>

> I'm not sure I follow. The MVP is given to one player. That's why
> it's for the most valuable _player_, not the team.

What I mean by this is simply that judging who is the MVP is nearly
impossible because baseball is a team game. Regardless of whether or not
you do it my way or your way, there will always be arguments. That's why
we're having this discussion in the first place. There are no agreed upon
criteria for what constitutes an MVP. I have my opinions about it, and
you have yours.

>
> However, there are cases where that
> > happens. For instance, with the Seattle Mariners, if they lose either
> > Griffey or Randy Johnson to injury, they tend to have a much less
> > successful team.
>

> Oh? How much ground have they lost while Johnson was out? IIRC,
> they actually pulled away during that time? Yes, they would be
> less successful with Griffey out, unless they brought in Piazza
> to catch. Or Bonds in left. Or Walker in center straight up.

Well, if I recall correctly, Johnson was out for quite a bit of the season
last year, and the Mariners did not make the play-offs. They have
basically the same team this year where they will make the play-offs, and
had basically the same team in 95, when they made the play-offs.

>
>
> I'm not saying that there are not other good players on
> > the team, but the loss of either of those two makes a huge difference. It
> > could make the difference between making and not making the play-offs.
> > That is my definition of an MVP.
> >
>

> IOW, you do use the definition "the best player on the
> team that makes the playoffs by the least amount"?

I never said "the best player on the team that makes the playoffs by the
least amount" I said, the player that helps a team the most to get to the
playoffs. The player that would likely make the difference in getting a
team to the playoffs. In recent years, that has been the case for the
MVP. If you recall, in '95, Belle did not get the MVP because he was on a
team that would most likely have made the playoffs with or without him.
However, Vaughn got the award, because the Red Sox probably would not have
made the playoffs without him. Did Mo have better numbers that year than
Belle? I don't remember, but I highly doubt it, since that was the best
season of Belle's career.

>
> > By the way, the American Heritage Diction defines "valuable" as:
> >
> > 1. Having considerable monetary or material value for use or exchange.
> > 2. Of great importance, use, or service.
> > 3. Having admirable or esteemed qualities or characteristics.
> >
> > I guess my definition of MVP most closely represents definiton #2 above.
>

> Why not use 1? Or how about "the player that does the most to help
> his team win baseball games"? Because, when you get down to it, that's
> all anyone can really do.
>
> paul

If you use definition number one, any player that draws a crowd or
attention, and thereby increases money coming to the team could be
considered an MVP candidate. In that sense, Irabu could be considered for
MVP because he drew considerable media attention and drew fans to the
ballpark. A player could start acting like Dennis Rodman does in
basketball, and that might draw fans, but that does not mean he should be
considered for the MVP simply based on that.

I'm simply outlining my perception of how the MVP is awarded. Do I
completely agree with it? No, there are plenty of things in baseball I
don't completely agree with. I don't agree with Cal Ripken making the All
Star team every year regardless of how he performs that particular year.
Does that mean I think they should change the way they pick the All Star
team? No, I'll take the good with the bad. Perhaps they should make an
MVP award and a Player of the Year award, with the Player of the Year
award going to the player with the best objective criteria, or in other
words, statistics, even though, like I said above, statistics aren't
entirely objective. But nothing in life really is.

[Paul G. Wenthold]

J. D. Schenker wrote:
>
> In article <5vrpu6$f55$1...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>, my3...@webtv.net
> (Paul Clerico) wrote:
>
> > Webster's definition of valuable--Of monetary value;
> > worth a good price. Therefore, "most valuable" would mean the player
> > worth the most in dollars (not paid the most) and worth the best price.
> > By the very definition of the award, where the team falls at in the
> > standings should have nothing to do with who the award should be
> > presented. If looking at the standings first and then determining who
> > should win the award is a criteria, then we need to change the name of
> > the award.
>
> I don't think we need to change the name if we don't give the award as you
> suggest above. My personal opinion is that the award should go to the
> player that helps his team achieve the most success. The player who made
> such a difference that the team could not have gotten where they are
> without him.

So a player that is worth two extra wins over a season on a team that

makes the playoff by one game is more valuable than a guy worth
6 extra wins but is on a team that wins by 7 games? Seems pretty
silly to me to have an individual award depend on the capabilities
of the players teammates.

BTW, who do you pick on a team that makes the playoffs by one

game? Everyone who is worth more than 2 wins is a viable candidate
by your definition. Or do you reduce your criteria to "the best player
on the team that makes the playoffs by the least amount."

>I would have a difficult time giving the MVP award to a good
> player on a last place team, even if he is far and away the best player in
> the league, because the team could have certainly "achieved" last place
> without him.

But the MVP is an individual award, it is not meant to reward winning
teams. We already give them championships.

Yes, this sucks for good players on bad teams, but how can

> you say that the most valuable player in the league is all that valuable
> if they can't keep their team out of the bottom of their division?

Easy. Baseball is a team game. Michael Jordan couldn't even
win a championship until he got some decent players around him.

I know
> it's rare in baseball for one or two players to carry a team, so it's hard
> to give that award to any one player.

I'm not sure I follow. The MVP is given to one player. That's why
it's for the most valuable _player_, not the team.

However, there are cases where that

> happens. For instance, with the Seattle Mariners, if they lose either
> Griffey or Randy Johnson to injury, they tend to have a much less
> successful team.

Oh? How much ground have they lost while Johnson was out? IIRC,
they actually pulled away during that time? Yes, they would be
less successful with Griffey out, unless they brought in Piazza
to catch. Or Bonds in left. Or Walker in center straight up.

I'm not saying that there are not other good players on
> the team, but the loss of either of those two makes a huge difference. It
> could make the difference between making and not making the play-offs.
> That is my definition of an MVP.
>

IOW, you do use the definition "the best player on the
team that makes the playoffs by the least amount"?

> By the way, the American Heritage Diction defines "valuable" as:

[Terry May]

Re: _Definition of MVP_, Paul Clerico wrote to All on 18 Sep 97:

PC> Webster's definition of valuable--Of monetary value;
PC> worth a good price. Therefore, "most valuable" would mean the
PC> player worth the most in dollars (not paid the most) and worth the
PC> best price. By the very definition of the award, where the team falls
PC> at in the standings should have nothing to do with who the award
PC> should be presented. If looking at the standings first and then
PC> determining who should win the award is a criteria, then we need to
PC> change the name of the award.

That has to be the most absurd definition of MVP I've heard yet.

... PITCHERS.BAT found! Delete DH.SYS (Y/y)?
--
|Fidonet: Terry May 1:209/745
|Internet: Terr...@rebel.ronly.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[James Tuttle]

DCRounds compares a HR early in the game and one late in the game. He
sez:

> It is a myth, that
> runs scored later in a game somehow count more than ones earlier.

Maybe and maybe not. I'm trying to test that now, and others have done
the same.

I suspect that early runs that give you the lead are pretty important,
but late-inning runs that give you the lead are somewhat more
important. OTOH, I also suspect that an early run that gives you the
lead is more important than a late-inning insurance run.

[DCRounds]

Subject: Re: Definition of MVP
From: jd...@UAkron.Edu (J. D. Schenker)

> Take the
>All-Star MVP award for example. Alomar hit a two run homer that won >the
>game, so he got the MVP award. Martinez also hit a home run, but did not
>get the award. Why? Partly because someone was on base when Alomar >hit
>his. And partly because it was the game winner.

Changing the fact a little by saying that Martinez hit a 2 run HR, there
is zero difference in importance between either HR. It is a myth, that

[John Krempasky]

jd...@UAkron.Edu (J. D. Schenker) wrote:

I would have a difficult time giving the MVP award to a good
>player on a last place team, even if he is far and away the best player in
>the league, because the team could have certainly "achieved" last place

>without him. Yes, this sucks for good players on bad teams, but how can

>you say that the most valuable player in the league is all that valuable
>if they can't keep their team out of the bottom of their division?

Well, to be brutally honest, I find this the absolute DUMBEST, most
completely incomprensible widely popular opinion in baseball. I have
no idea how it developed and what sustains it.

So a great player who busts his butt all seaon, but is surrounded
by completely horrible players, is "not valuable." His effort is
worthless, eh?

Individuals in Baseball are inherently LESS valuable than in
almost any other sport. Brett Favre is infinately MORE valuable to
the Packers than Griffey is to the Mariners. Jordan is infinately
more valuable to the Bulls than Piazza is to the Dodgers. Gretzky at
his prime was infinately more valuable to the Oilers than Maddux is to
the Braves. Because of this it is well possible that a truly great
player could be on a horrible team in baseball.

The standard imbecilic MVP opinion was taken to a hilarious extreme
when Albert Bell contended for it and people said that since the
Indians were SO good he shouldn't get it because he didn't matter in
where they finished. ROFL!!!!

[J. D. Schenker]

In article <60emat$hv7$1...@news.dmv.com>, jo...@dmv.com wrote:

> jd...@UAkron.Edu (J. D. Schenker) wrote:
>
>
> I would have a difficult time giving the MVP award to a good
> >player on a last place team, even if he is far and away the best player in
> >the league, because the team could have certainly "achieved" last place
> >without him. Yes, this sucks for good players on bad teams, but how can
> >you say that the most valuable player in the league is all that valuable
> >if they can't keep their team out of the bottom of their division?
>
> Well, to be brutally honest, I find this the absolute DUMBEST, most
> completely incomprensible widely popular opinion in baseball. I have
> no idea how it developed and what sustains it.
>
> So a great player who busts his butt all seaon, but is surrounded
> by completely horrible players, is "not valuable." His effort is
> worthless, eh?

His effort is not worthless, but it certainly isn't the "most valuable" in
the league. Most valuable does not equal best, as much as you might like
it to. Hitting in runs and getting on base is hardly as valuable when you
are losing ten to nothing as when you are in a tie ballgame or winning or
losing by a small margin.

>
> Individuals in Baseball are inherently LESS valuable than in
> almost any other sport. Brett Favre is infinately MORE valuable to
> the Packers than Griffey is to the Mariners. Jordan is infinately
> more valuable to the Bulls than Piazza is to the Dodgers. Gretzky at
> his prime was infinately more valuable to the Oilers than Maddux is to
> the Braves. Because of this it is well possible that a truly great
> player could be on a horrible team in baseball.

I can't say that I entirely agree. In football, a quarterback is only as
good as his offensive line and receivers. If the line doesn't give him
any time to throw the ball, or the recievers can't catch it, it hardly
matters how good the quarterback really is. I'm not sure about your logic
there either. I'm not sure how it follows that just because baseball
players are inherently less valuable automatically means that a truly
great player could be on a horrible team. I see that in other sports as
well. Like the example I gave above, a quarterback can only be as good as
his offensive line and receivers allow him to be. A good quarterback is
not going to make a bad team good (just ask Dan Marino about most of his
many years in Miami). I would say that personal performance can be more
easily measured in baseball than it can in the other sports you've listed
above. Aside from that, I don't dispute the fact that a truly great
player can be on a bad team.

>
> The standard imbecilic MVP opinion was taken to a hilarious extreme
> when Albert Bell contended for it and people said that since the
> Indians were SO good he shouldn't get it because he didn't matter in
> where they finished. ROFL!!!!

I, being an Indians fan, was upset at the time that Belle didn't get the
MVP award that year. But now I understand it. The fact of the matter is,
there are various MVP awards in baseball. One for each league, one for
the All-Star game, and one for the World Series. The one common factor in
all of these awards is that they typically go to members of winning
teams. How often do teams that lose the World Series have one of their
players given the World Series MVP award? Or the team that loses the
All-Star game? That doesn't mean that these teams don't have the players
that have the best performance overall, but they happen to be on the
losing teams. Like I said in a previous post, maybe there should be a
"player of the year" award that goes to whoever is considered the best
player in the league. But, in my "imbecilic" opinion, value can only be
determined in reference to achievement of a valued outcome (division
championship, league championship, World Series Championship). A good
player on a bad team does not do much (nor can he) to help that team
achieve a valued outcome.

[James Weisberg]

In article <60emat$hv7$1...@news.dmv.com>, John Krempasky <jo...@dmv.com> wrote:
>jd...@UAkron.Edu (J. D. Schenker) wrote:
>
> I would have a difficult time giving the MVP award to a good
>>player on a last place team, even if he is far and away the best player in
>>the league, because the team could have certainly "achieved" last place
>>without him. Yes, this sucks for good players on bad teams, but how can
>>you say that the most valuable player in the league is all that valuable
>>if they can't keep their team out of the bottom of their division?
>
> Well, to be brutally honest, I find this the absolute DUMBEST, most
>completely incomprensible widely popular opinion in baseball. I have
>no idea how it developed and what sustains it.

What sustains it is that the MVP award has historically gone
to an individual on a contending team. The idea being that the
term "most valuable" contains the notion that the "value is
well spent" i.e. the team accomplished something with the
valuable performance of its player. The MVP does not reflect
the "best player".
I tend to agree that it's pointless to give an MVP award to
a player on non-contending team. The argument that had that
player been on a contending team, he would have received the
MVP is of no consequence. It's not that his performance was
*valueless*, but that it was *contextually valueless*. The
greatest single performance in baseball history on a last
place team has no contextual value for that team, for that
year. The goal of every major league team is to win games.
The "best player" helps a team when the most games. But the
"most valuable player" spends his value most effectively.

[Colin Campbell]

This is why we need the Babe Ruth award to complement the Cy Young
award, separate from the Most Valuable Player award.
In 1988, Darryl Strawberry had the big stats, but the award went to
Kirk Gibson for his screaming intensity and clutch performance. If Gibson
were on the 1997 Dodgers, they would not be in their somnolent decline.

[Nelson Lu]

In article <60fbb7$3b6$1...@nnrp1.crl.com>,
Colin Campbell <col...@crl3.crl.com> wrote:

> In 1988, Darryl Strawberry had the big stats, but the award went to
>Kirk Gibson for his screaming intensity and clutch performance. If Gibson
>were on the 1997 Dodgers, they would not be in their somnolent decline.

I suspect that if Gibson were on the 1997 Dodgers, they would have even worse
defense than they do already.

===============================================================================
GO ANAHEIM ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)

[David Marc Nieporent]

In <60erqo$a...@miso.wwa.com>,
James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:

>In article <60emat$hv7$1...@news.dmv.com>, John Krempasky <jo...@dmv.com> wrote:
>>jd...@UAkron.Edu (J. D. Schenker) wrote:

>> I would have a difficult time giving the MVP award to a good
>>>player on a last place team, even if he is far and away the best player in
>>>the league, because the team could have certainly "achieved" last place
>>>without him. Yes, this sucks for good players on bad teams, but how can
>>>you say that the most valuable player in the league is all that valuable
>>>if they can't keep their team out of the bottom of their division?

>> Well, to be brutally honest, I find this the absolute DUMBEST, most
>>completely incomprensible widely popular opinion in baseball. I have
>>no idea how it developed and what sustains it.
>
What sustains it is that the MVP award has historically gone
>to an individual on a contending team. The idea being that the
>term "most valuable" contains the notion that the "value is
>well spent" i.e. the team accomplished something with the
>valuable performance of its player. The MVP does not reflect
>the "best player".

Right. That's the complaint many of us have. That the MVP voting doesn't
reflect the best player, as it should.

> I tend to agree that it's pointless to give an MVP award to
>a player on non-contending team. The argument that had that
>player been on a contending team, he would have received the
>MVP is of no consequence. It's not that his performance was
>*valueless*, but that it was *contextually valueless*. The
>greatest single performance in baseball history on a last
>place team has no contextual value for that team, for that
>year. The goal of every major league team is to win games.
>The "best player" helps a team when the most games. But the
>"most valuable player" spends his value most effectively.

What I don't understand is this incessant focus -- from you and the
earlier poster -- on the team's *position,* as opposed to the team's
*record.* It's not "contextually valueless." Tony Gwynn's performance (to
pick an example, not that I understand why anybody thinks he's an MVP
candidate) added wins to the team. That's not "valueless." Would San
Diego fans be just as happy if Luis Polonia was playing RF as they were
with Gwynn playing RF? I'm betting they would not. Why not, if Gwynn's
performance was valueless?
--
David M. Nieporent Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many who live
Niep...@pluto.njcc.com deserve death. And some who die deserve life. Can
Hampshire/Plainsboro, NJ you give it to them? Then be not so quick to give
ORIOLES 1997!!??!!!! the other. For not even the wise can see all ends.

[Tom Grey]

On 26 Sep 1997, David Marc Nieporent wrote:

>
> Right. That's the complaint many of us have. That the MVP voting doesn't
> reflect the best player, as it should.
>
> > I tend to agree that it's pointless to give an MVP award to
> >a player on non-contending team. The argument that had that
> >player been on a contending team, he would have received the
> >MVP is of no consequence. It's not that his performance was
> >*valueless*, but that it was *contextually valueless*. The
> >greatest single performance in baseball history on a last
> >place team has no contextual value for that team, for that

> >year. The goal of every major league team is to win games...

>
> What I don't understand is this incessant focus -- from you and the
> earlier poster -- on the team's *position,* as opposed to the team's
> *record.* It's not "contextually valueless." Tony Gwynn's performance (to
> pick an example, not that I understand why anybody thinks he's an MVP
> candidate) added wins to the team. That's not "valueless." Would San
> Diego fans be just as happy if Luis Polonia was playing RF as they were
> with Gwynn playing RF? I'm betting they would not. Why not, if Gwynn's

> performance was valueless?...

I think the traditional practice of weighting the team's final position in
the MVP voting can be seen to be rational if we use the metric implied at
the end here - what the fans value. Fans value position more than wins,
and changes of position according to how high in the standings they are.
Suppose a great player (call him Bonds) adds 8 wins over average. If your
team finishes last in the division by 2 games rather than 10, he hasn't
made you feel much better. If he gets you from last place to second to
last, that's better. If he gets you from .500 and out of it, to 89-73 and
a close second place finish, better still, and by a greater amount. If
the 89-73 wins the division by a game, it is a hugely greater increase in
value (from the point of fan satisfaction).

The usual measures of performance relate to runs (and hence via the
pythagorean rule to wins). Wins however are related to fan satisfaction
(value in the MVP sense) in a non-linear way.

-- Tom Grey Stanford CA tg...@leland.stanford.edu

[James Weisberg]

In article <60frnp$6p5$1...@mars.njcc.com>,
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
^^^^

You get a new name David? Congrats. ;-)

>In <60erqo$a...@miso.wwa.com>,
>James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:

> What sustains it is that the MVP award has historically gone
>>to an individual on a contending team. The idea being that the
>>term "most valuable" contains the notion that the "value is
>>well spent" i.e. the team accomplished something with the
>>valuable performance of its player. The MVP does not reflect
>>the "best player".
>

>Right. That's the complaint many of us have. That the MVP voting doesn't
>reflect the best player, as it should.

But you do realize that some people, myself included, do
tie the idea of MVP to a winning team. It's not *wrong* or
*dumb* to do this. It's just a different philosophy. One
nice thing, I feel, about this philosophy is that a good
player with a great season can win the award and does not
necc have to be the best player in baseball. I think it
would grow stale watching Barry Bonds win the MVP every
year. And it would be *really* stale knowing Babe Ruth
won a dozen or so. You already know he's the *best* (not
the greatest, mind you) player in terms of career value.
A dozen or more MVP awards don't need to tell you that.

>>It's not that his performance was
>>*valueless*, but that it was *contextually valueless*. The
>>greatest single performance in baseball history on a last
>>place team has no contextual value for that team, for that

>>year. The goal of every major league team is to win games.
>>The "best player" helps a team when the most games. But the
>>"most valuable player" spends his value most effectively.
>

>What I don't understand is this incessant focus -- from you and the
>earlier poster -- on the team's *position,* as opposed to the team's
>*record.*

I don't think I am refering specifically to the team's
*position*. For the most part, a *winning* team will do. A
last place team, which has always been one with a <.500
record, doesn't deserve any MVP. Dawson was the first, right?
I don't think he should have got it.

>It's not "contextually valueless."

On a last place team it is. On a contending team, that
performance has more value. If you don't buy that philosophy,
it's just a simple matter of disagreement. When judging the
best player in the league (when best is defined as the guy
who creates the most runs for your team), then record is
irrelevant.

>Tony Gwynn's performance (to
>pick an example, not that I understand why anybody thinks he's an MVP
>candidate) added wins to the team. That's not "valueless." Would San
>Diego fans be just as happy if Luis Polonia was playing RF as they were
>with Gwynn playing RF? I'm betting they would not. Why not, if Gwynn's
>performance was valueless?

I didn't say it was valueless. I said the greatest performance
in the history of baseball on a last place team would be "contextually
valueless". And you can't argue with me here because, by definition,
the term "value" *requires* the team itself to be a contending
team. If you labeled the performance of the individual X, and the
performance of the team Y, when a team finishes in last place, Y
is zero. Thus, it doesn't matter how large X is. X*Y is 0. That's
what I mean by "contextually valueless". Don't ask me how to
describe Y. I don't know exactly. But it gets bigger as teams win
more games. And the best X*Y describes the most valuable player
(not the best player, which is simply X).
And just to annoy you some more, Z is the component of greatness
which I also have failed to describe exactly in previous posts.
The highest X*Y*Z is the greatest player in baseball history. And
you know who I think has the greatest X*Y*Z value.

[ddr...@imap1.asu.edu]

David Marc Nieporent (niep...@pluto.njcc.com) wrote:

[Summary of snipped material:

Person A: The MVP shouldn't go to a player on a last-place team.
Person B: This is DUMB. Why do people think this?
Person C: Because the award has historically gone to someone on a
contending team. It hasn't always gone to the *best* player.]

: Right. That's the complaint many of us have. That the MVP voting doesn't

: reflect the best player, as it should.

Why *should* it?

: What I don't understand is this incessant focus -- from you and the

: earlier poster -- on the team's *position,* as opposed to the team's
: *record.*

As far as I'm concerned, people can interpret MVP as "most *valuable*
player" or "best player" as they see fit. You can choose to consider
"context" or not. It's a matter of personal preference. But if you
consider context, you should look at the position, and not the record.

Consider three singles: one hit in the ninth inning of a 9-0 game, one
hit in the ninth inning of an 11-10 game, one in the ninth of a 1-0
game. The first is likely to be the least valuable. The second 2 were
equally valuable (all else equal, of course). Your argument that record
should be a greater consideration than position (though I realize you'd
consider neither, which is certainly a reasonable viewpoint) is like saying
score is more important than relative score. Who cares whether my team
has 11 runs or 1 run when that hit occurs? What's important is that my
team had a one-run lead.

Value comes from a combination of quality and context, and an important
part of that context, in this case, is the records of the teams
you're competing against.

Doug

[J. D. Schenker]

> What I don't understand is this incessant focus -- from you and the
> earlier poster -- on the team's *position,* as opposed to the team's

> *record.* It's not "contextually valueless." Tony Gwynn's performance (to

> pick an example, not that I understand why anybody thinks he's an MVP
> candidate) added wins to the team. That's not "valueless." Would San
> Diego fans be just as happy if Luis Polonia was playing RF as they were
> with Gwynn playing RF? I'm betting they would not. Why not, if Gwynn's
> performance was valueless?

> --

I don't think we are focusing on a team's position over their record. The
two are often very related. Also, no one is saying that a good player on
a non-contending team does not add value to that team. However, they just
don't add the same value as a good player on a contending team. Even if
your example of Tony Gwynn is responsible for winning 20 games for the
Padres, is that the same value as someone who is responsible for 20 wins
on a contending team? I tend not to think so, not that I think you could
really measure how many wins a certain player is responsible for anyway.

The thing I don't understand is that people disagree with picking the MVP
from the pool of contending teams, yet no one really says how the MVP
should be picked. Saying "the best player should be given the MVP" means
very little, especially if you define the MVP as the best player (it then
becomes the equivalent of saying "the MVP should be given the MVP). How
do you choose "the best player"? Is a player who bats .300, with 40 HR's,
but doesn't walk much, more valuable than a player who bats .300 with few
HR's, but who walks alot and steals alot of bases? Most people would give
it to the first player, as he hits for power. Would you give the World
Series MVP award to the player who hits .400 in the World Series with no
runs scored or RBI's or the player who hits .200 with 6 runs scored and 6
RBI's? The first player had the better performance, but it didn't amount
to much value, as he didn't get the hits at the right times, some of which
might not be his fault, but some of it might be. I'd rather have a player
that gets hits in clutch situations than a player who gets hits that don't
translate into runs, regardless of their batting averages. The point we
are trying to make is that a "better" performance does not always
translate to more "value".

I think part of the reason why people, including myself, like to choose
the MVP from contending teams is that it eliminates a quite a few players
from the running. It's a hell of alot easier to choose the MVP from a
pool of four teams than a pool of 14. Aside from that, a good player on a
bad team has a disadvantage regardless of how you pick the MVP. That
player is less likely to have has many RBI's or runs scored if the rest of
the lineup sucks. Even a player's batting average can depend on the rest
of the lineup. This may not seem immediately obvious, but it does make
some sense if you think about it. A good player on a bad team may not try
as hard to get hits if the team is losing by a bunch of runs, and/or if
he's constantly coming to bat with two outs and no one on. In addition, a
good team can often knock a starting pitcher out of the game earlier, thus
forcing the other team to go to what is usually a worse pitcher in the
bullpen.

[J. D. Schenker]

[Paul Antonissen]

In article <60goj1$i...@miso.wwa.com>, chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James
Weisberg) wrote:

>In article <60frnp$6p5$1...@mars.njcc.com>,
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> ^^^^
>
>You get a new name David? Congrats. ;-)
>
>>In <60erqo$a...@miso.wwa.com>,
>>James Weisberg <chad...@sashimi.wwa.com> claimed:
>> What sustains it is that the MVP award has historically gone
>>>to an individual on a contending team. The idea being that the
>>>term "most valuable" contains the notion that the "value is
>>>well spent" i.e. the team accomplished something with the
>>>valuable performance of its player. The MVP does not reflect
>>>the "best player".
>>

>>Right. That's the complaint many of us have. That the MVP voting doesn't
>>reflect the best player, as it should.
>

> But you do realize that some people, myself included, do
>tie the idea of MVP to a winning team. It's not *wrong* or
>*dumb* to do this. It's just a different philosophy. One
>nice thing, I feel, about this philosophy is that a good
>player with a great season can win the award and does not
>necc have to be the best player in baseball. I think it
>would grow stale watching Barry Bonds win the MVP every
>year. And it would be *really* stale knowing Babe Ruth
>won a dozen or so.

It must've been stale watching Ty Cobb win a dozen or so batting titles.

[deletia]

***************************************************************
-Herr Pauly

"I pragmatically turn my whims into principles." -Calvin

[James Tuttle]

Seems to me the MVP is the player who increases the number of team wins
the most, however you measure that. If you replace each MVP contender,
one by one, with an average player at that position, how many fewer wins
does the team get? Whenever that number is maximized, you've found the
MVP.

In principle, this has nothing to do with the team's ranking in its
division, although it does have something to do with the number of games
the team wins.

[Chuck Van Den Corput]

chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James Weisberg) wrote:

> I think it
>would grow stale watching Barry Bonds win the MVP every
>year.

Really? I would find the opposite to be true. (To say nothing of the
further corollary of the implications of the media having matured to
such a state).

Bonds winning every year would be analogous to a dynasty. I've always
found dynasties in sports fascinating, though I do recognize that
they're not for all tastes. If he's the best, call him the best.
Caminiti and Pendleton and whomever else can take turns being
runner-up.

[Raymond Diperna]

J. D. Schenker (jd...@UAkron.Edu) wrote:
: > What I don't understand is this incessant focus -- from you and the

: > earlier poster -- on the team's *position,* as opposed to the team's
: > *record.* It's not "contextually valueless." Tony Gwynn's performance (to
: > pick an example, not that I understand why anybody thinks he's an MVP
: > candidate) added wins to the team. That's not "valueless." Would San
: > Diego fans be just as happy if Luis Polonia was playing RF as they were
: > with Gwynn playing RF? I'm betting they would not. Why not, if Gwynn's
: > performance was valueless?

: I don't think we are focusing on a team's position over their record. The

: two are often very related. Also, no one is saying that a good player on
: a non-contending team does not add value to that team. However, they just
: don't add the same value as a good player on a contending team. Even if
: your example of Tony Gwynn is responsible for winning 20 games for the
: Padres, is that the same value as someone who is responsible for 20 wins
: on a contending team? I tend not to think so, not that I think you could
: really measure how many wins a certain player is responsible for anyway.

Why not? 20 wins = 20 wins (not that Gwynn adds anywhere close to that
total).

: The thing I don't understand is that people disagree with picking the MVP

: from the pool of contending teams, yet no one really says how the MVP
: should be picked.

The best player should be given the MVP.

: Saying "the best player should be given the MVP" means

: very little, especially if you define the MVP as the best player (it then
: becomes the equivalent of saying "the MVP should be given the MVP). How
: do you choose "the best player"? Is a player who bats .300, with 40 HR's,
: but doesn't walk much, more valuable than a player who bats .300 with few
: HR's, but who walks alot and steals alot of bases?

I have no idea -- your example is incomplete because you've left out so
much important information (OBP, SLG, number of plate appearances,
defensive position, etc).

: Most people would give

: it to the first player, as he hits for power. Would you give the World
: Series MVP award to the player who hits .400 in the World Series with no
: runs scored or RBI's or the player who hits .200 with 6 runs scored and 6
: RBI's?

I have no idea, based on the limited amount of information you've
supplied.

: The first player had the better performance, but it didn't amount

: to much value, as he didn't get the hits at the right times, some of which
: might not be his fault, but some of it might be. I'd rather have a player
: that gets hits in clutch situations than a player who gets hits that don't
: translate into runs, regardless of their batting averages.

Well, a few comments here:

1) Which players are these that get most of their hits only in "clutch
situations"? Please supply a list of such players (this shouldn't be hard
to do, given that your entire argument is based on this premise).

2) Which players are these that come through mostly in "NON-clutch
situations"? Please supply a list of such players (again, it should be
very easy for you to find many such players, if your statements represent
reality).

3) When you find these "clutch hitters," please ask them why they slack
off and don't try as hard in non-clutch situations. I'd be curious to
hear their explanation.

4) In your above example, you complain that the player who hit .400 in
the World Series did not score a run. But if the player got on base, yet
his teammates fail to drive him in, how in the world can you blame this on
the player?

5) You also lament the fact that this player who hit .400 in the series
had no RBIs. What would you have him do when the bases are empty --
should he slack off at the plate and not try, because there's nobody on
for him to drive in? (oh yeah, I forgot -- you like "clutch hitters" who
only try hard in clutch situations) How do you think rallies get started?
Someone's got to get on base in the first place. You ignore this.

6) There would be fewer clutch situations later in the game if these
mythical "clutch hitters" would simply cut the bull and try hard in the
early innings, thereby building a lead so that the game *wasn't* close in
the late innings.

: The point we are trying to make is that a "better" performance does

: not always translate to more "value".

The point is silly, because it's based on the premise that certain
players "step it up" in the clutch, when there's no evidence at all that
such players exist.

: I think part of the reason why people, including myself, like to choose

: the MVP from contending teams is that it eliminates a quite a few players
: from the running.

I fail to see how eliminating deserving candidates in an arbitrary and
capricious fashion gets one any closer to determining who the true MVP is.

: It's a hell of alot easier to choose the MVP from a pool of four teams

: than a pool of 14.

No offense, but -- to put it bluntly -- if you're not capable if making a
valid selection based on *all* of the candidates, leave it to those who
can.

: Aside from that, a good player on a

: bad team has a disadvantage regardless of how you pick the MVP. That
: player is less likely to have has many RBI's or runs scored if the rest of
: the lineup sucks.

Right; that's why RBIs and runs scored should not be factored in when
evaluating an individual player's performance.

The solution here is not to eliminate the *candidates* because RBIs and
Runs are flawed statistics, but to eliminate these invalid *statistics*
from the analysis.

: Even a player's batting average can depend on the rest

: of the lineup. This may not seem immediately obvious, but it does make
: some sense if you think about it. A good player on a bad team may not try
: as hard to get hits if the team is losing by a bunch of runs, and/or if
: he's constantly coming to bat with two outs and no one on.

Please provide a list of some such players. General conclusions which
have no basis in fact are not helpful here.

: In addition, a

: good team can often knock a starting pitcher out of the game earlier, thus
: forcing the other team to go to what is usually a worse pitcher in the
: bullpen.

--------------------------------------------------------------
| Ray DiPerna <rad...@pitt.edu> |
--------------------------------------------------------------

[ddr...@imap1.asu.edu]

Raymond Diperna (rads...@pitt.edu) wrote:
: J. D. Schenker (jd...@UAkron.Edu) wrote:

: : The thing I don't understand is that people disagree with picking the MVP

: : from the pool of contending teams, yet no one really says how the MVP
: : should be picked.

: The best player should be given the MVP.

Again I ask why? Are you saying that the best player is *necessarily*
the most valuable? Or are you saying that if the best player doesn't
happen to be the most valuable, that the award should be given to the
best rather than the most valuable? If you're saying the former, you are
wrong. If the latter, I think you should recognize that
you're stating an opinion. It is, IMHO, a very reasonable opinion, but
it's not the only reasonable opinion.

[Hypothetical example snipped]

: : The first player had the better performance, but it didn't amount

: : to much value, as he didn't get the hits at the right times, some of which
: : might not be his fault, but some of it might be. I'd rather have a player
: : that gets hits in clutch situations than a player who gets hits that don't
: : translate into runs, regardless of their batting averages.

: Well, a few comments here:

: 1) Which players are these that get most of their hits only in "clutch
: situations"? Please supply a list of such players (this shouldn't be hard
: to do, given that your entire argument is based on this premise).

I don't want to put words in J.D.'s mouth because I don't know what he
had in mind. But I'd like to point out that (a) he didn't say "most" of
his hits in clutch situations, and (b) finding a list of players who have
hit better in clutch situations is *absurdly easy*. D Easley (947 OPS in
late inning pressure situations), Chili Davis (1124), G Jeffries (an even
thousand). It took me less than five minutes to find these guys and I
could've found 20 more in a half-hour.

: 2) Which players are these that come through mostly in "NON-clutch

: situations"? Please supply a list of such players (again, it should be
: very easy for you to find many such players, if your statements represent
: reality).

Will Clark (533), S Rolen (735), Jeff Kent (666--this one is interesting
for several reasons.).

Yes. I'm playing dumb here. I know that there's no reason to believe
that Greg Jeffries will hit better than Scott Rolen in clutch situations
next year. But that doesn't alter the fact that he has hit better in
clutch situations this year, and that that might cause the "value" of his
performance to have been greater than the "quality" of his performance
would suggest.

: : The point we are trying to make is that a "better" performance does

: : not always translate to more "value".

: The point is silly, because it's based on the premise that certain
: players "step it up" in the clutch, when there's no evidence at all that
: such players exist.

Again, I don't want to speak for J.D. because I'm not exactly sure what
he meant by this, but if you just look at that quote ("The point we ...
'value'"), the assertion it makes is clear. It's not "silly" for a couple
of reasons:

-- It's not based on the premise that certain players always "step it
up." It's based (among other things) on the premise that certain players
"stepped it up" in the past, which is *completely obvious*. Again, if
you want to consider that a random fluctuation and not give them credit
for it on your MVP ballot, that's reasonable. But don't ridicule those
that do.

You can quote me on this: CLUTCH HITTING EXISTS. The ironic thing is
that you hear things like "studies have shown clutch hitting doesn't
exist" around here all the time. Wrong. Studies have shown clutch
hitting *ability* doesn't exist. In order to conduct such a study, you
have to *assume* clutch hitting exists.

-- But it doesn't just have to be about clutch performance. A walk
followed by a homer is more valuable than a homer followed by a walk.
If two players have identical seasons (hitting, say 40 dingers) but all
of one player's homers follow a walk and all of the other player's come
with the bases empty, the first player's performance was more valuable.

Once again, you can choose to ignore that on your MVP ballot with an
argument along the lines of: I shouldn't reward this guy because he had
a better hitter in front of him. That's fine with me. But you *cannot*
ignore the fact that his homers were more valuable.

Doug

[J. D. Schenker]

In article <60i8gs$6...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
(Raymond Diperna) wrote:

>
> The best player should be given the MVP.

There you go again. Let me rephrase it. What criteria would you use to
choose an MVP, or the "best player"? You complain about my "silly" way of
doing it later on in your post, but yet you still don't say how you would
do it. In addition, what if someone who is far and away the "best player"
is also injured half the season? Do you still give him the MVP? I guess
it depends on how you determine the "best player" which I still don't
know.

>
> : Saying "the best player should be given the MVP" means
> : very little, especially if you define the MVP as the best player (it then
> : becomes the equivalent of saying "the MVP should be given the MVP). How
> : do you choose "the best player"? Is a player who bats .300, with 40 HR's,
> : but doesn't walk much, more valuable than a player who bats .300 with few
> : HR's, but who walks alot and steals alot of bases?
>
> I have no idea -- your example is incomplete because you've left out so
> much important information (OBP, SLG, number of plate appearances,
> defensive position, etc).

>
> : Most people would give
> : it to the first player, as he hits for power. Would you give the World
> : Series MVP award to the player who hits .400 in the World Series with no
> : runs scored or RBI's or the player who hits .200 with 6 runs scored and 6
> : RBI's?
>
> I have no idea, based on the limited amount of information you've
> supplied.

It's just a general example. The point is, based on limited information,
you can't choose the MVP, but that's what people do. It seems to go
typically to power hitters with alot of RBI's, which is kind of odd to me,
because using just RBI's and number of HR's is counting some of the same
runs twice.

>
> : The first player had the better performance, but it didn't amount
> : to much value, as he didn't get the hits at the right times, some of which
> : might not be his fault, but some of it might be. I'd rather have a player
> : that gets hits in clutch situations than a player who gets hits that don't
> : translate into runs, regardless of their batting averages.
>
> Well, a few comments here:
>
> 1) Which players are these that get most of their hits only in "clutch
> situations"? Please supply a list of such players (this shouldn't be hard
> to do, given that your entire argument is based on this premise).

I don't have a complete book of stats for this year, but I certainly think
one could figure it out. I'm not just talking about people who get most
of their hits in clutch situations, just a large portion of them. They
have stats for BA with runners on, batting average with runners in scoring
position, etc. Perhaps you've heard of these? Two of the best clutch
hitters this year on the Indians for example are Tony Fernandez and
Marquis Grisson, even though their overall BA's are not that high.

>
> 2) Which players are these that come through mostly in "NON-clutch
> situations"? Please supply a list of such players (again, it should be
> very easy for you to find many such players, if your statements represent
> reality).

Let me ask you a question. It's the bottom of the ninth, bases loaded,
two outs, and your team is down by one run. Who do you want to see coming
to bat? Do you base this simply on their BA? I don't, at least not
entirely. I base it on having watched them perform in other similar
situations.

>
> 3) When you find these "clutch hitters," please ask them why they slack
> off and don't try as hard in non-clutch situations. I'd be curious to
> hear their explanation.

I never said that good "clutch hitters" slack off in non-clutch
situations. A good clutch hitter can be a good hitter in other situations
as well. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Again, Tony
Fernandez is not only good at "clutch hitting" but he's good at starting
rallies (or at least trying to), even though his batting average is only
around .280. However, certainly no one thinks of him as the team MVP.

>
> 4) In your above example, you complain that the player who hit .400 in
> the World Series did not score a run. But if the player got on base, yet
> his teammates fail to drive him in, how in the world can you blame this on
> the player?

I don't blame him. But no one would think of giving him the World Series
MVP award would they? It's not his fault that no one was on base, nor was
it his fault that no one hit him home. However, the only effect his hits
had on the games were to give his team more at bats.

>
> 5) You also lament the fact that this player who hit .400 in the series
> had no RBIs. What would you have him do when the bases are empty --
> should he slack off at the plate and not try, because there's nobody on
> for him to drive in? (oh yeah, I forgot -- you like "clutch hitters" who
> only try hard in clutch situations) How do you think rallies get started?
> Someone's got to get on base in the first place. You ignore this.

I don't like players who only hit in clutch situations. I like hitters
who hit in alot of different situations. I never said that I only like
clutch hitters. I don't expect lead-off hitters to be clutch hitters, but
I like to see them get on base. What you ignore is the rest of my post.
You focus on my idea of clutch hitting without listening to anything else
I said.

>
> 6) There would be fewer clutch situations later in the game if these
> mythical "clutch hitters" would simply cut the bull and try hard in the
> early innings, thereby building a lead so that the game *wasn't* close in
> the late innings.
>
> : The point we are trying to make is that a "better" performance does
> : not always translate to more "value".
>
> The point is silly, because it's based on the premise that certain
> players "step it up" in the clutch, when there's no evidence at all that
> such players exist.

No evidence at all? There are stats that reflect "clutch hitting." See above.

>
> : I think part of the reason why people, including myself, like to choose
> : the MVP from contending teams is that it eliminates a quite a few players
> : from the running.
>
> I fail to see how eliminating deserving candidates in an arbitrary and
> capricious fashion gets one any closer to determining who the true MVP is.
>
> : It's a hell of alot easier to choose the MVP from a pool of four teams
> : than a pool of 14.
>
> No offense, but -- to put it bluntly -- if you're not capable if making a
> valid selection based on *all* of the candidates, leave it to those who
> can.

I'm not offended, even though you seem to want to offend me, but I'm not
the one who chooses the MVP, nor would I want to be.

>
> : Aside from that, a good player on a
> : bad team has a disadvantage regardless of how you pick the MVP. That
> : player is less likely to have has many RBI's or runs scored if the rest of
> : the lineup sucks.
>
> Right; that's why RBIs and runs scored should not be factored in when
> evaluating an individual player's performance.

But they typically are. Well, more often RBI's and HR's than runs
scored. Ok, so RBI's and runs scored shouldn't be factored in to
determine the MVP. I guess, according to you, any statistic that reflects
clutch hitting shouldn't be either. What should be? Again, how would you
determine the "best player"?

>
> The solution here is not to eliminate the *candidates* because RBIs and
> Runs are flawed statistics, but to eliminate these invalid *statistics*
> from the analysis.

What stats do we use then? All stats have flaws. They are a summary of
the game, but ARE NOT the game itself. Context is important, and I like
to take it into account. That's why I like to choose a player for MVP on
a contending team. Because the context of making the play-offs is
important in determining value. If this weren't true, then why do teams
trade high priced, good players when they are having losing seasons? It's
because those players don't add much value to their team compared to what
they're getting paid. Those same players could very possibly add value to
a contending team where they are getting paid the same amount.

>
> : Even a player's batting average can depend on the rest
> : of the lineup. This may not seem immediately obvious, but it does make
> : some sense if you think about it. A good player on a bad team may not try
> : as hard to get hits if the team is losing by a bunch of runs, and/or if
> : he's constantly coming to bat with two outs and no one on.
>
> Please provide a list of some such players. General conclusions which
> have no basis in fact are not helpful here.

Sorry, I expressed a possible scenario based on thinking about it. I
guess thinking is not helpful here either. Just spewing out statistics.
Or bashing someone who's put thought into his posts.

>
> : In addition, a
> : good team can often knock a starting pitcher out of the game earlier, thus
> : forcing the other team to go to what is usually a worse pitcher in the
> : bullpen.

Ok, maybe I didn't make my point entirely obvious in my last post. MVP
cannot be determined on the basis of one or a few statistics. I wasn't
promoting using just "clutch hitting" to determine an MVP, but I was using
it as an example where one player could have a lower batting average, but
yet possibly a more valuable performance. What I promote is determining
the MVP based on the context of the game. The criteria could change from
year to year, as the context changes year to year. I do not promote
giving the MVP award almost always to power hitters, but they always seem
to be the more obvious candidates. I promote taking defense into account,
but it rarely is. I promote giving it to a player who hits well in the
clutch, even if his BA isn't as high as others. I also recognize that one
player's performance is interwoven with that of his teammates and that
this is unavoidable. Again, I've posted my ideas about how to determine
the MVP, which have again been argued with without any reference to
another, better way.

Let me ask a question that perhaps might help the discussion. Barry Bonds
is often considered the best player in the NL and Ken Griffey, Jr. in the
Al. (I'm not sure I entirely agree, but for the sake of argument, let's
say they are.) What makes these players the "best"?

[David Grabiner]

jd...@UAkron.Edu (J. D. Schenker) writes:

> I think part of the reason why people, including myself, like to choose
> the MVP from contending teams is that it eliminates a quite a few players

> from the running. It's a hell of alot easier to choose the MVP from a
> pool of four teams than a pool of 14. Aside from that, a good player on a

> bad team has a disadvantage regardless of how you pick the MVP. That
> player is less likely to have has many RBI's or runs scored if the rest of
> the lineup sucks.

This is why I ignore runs scored and RBI's in MVP voting; they are team
statistics. If a run scores on three singles, the third player gets the
RBI; this gives him credit for his own hit, and for the work the other
two players did in putting a runner on second base.

> Even a player's batting average can depend on the rest
> of the lineup. This may not seem immediately obvious, but it does make
> some sense if you think about it. A good player on a bad team may not try
> as hard to get hits if the team is losing by a bunch of runs,

I doubt that this happens, and if it did, it should be just as important
for a player on a good team who is ahead by a bunch of runs. I don't
usually hear about good players on bad teams accused of slacking in this
way; more often, there are complaints that the good players aren't
hitting well when it counts.

> and/or if
> he's constantly coming to bat with two outs and no one on.

The difference in situations isn't that great, and again, I don't think
this is a real effect. (Batting averages are lower with two outs and
nobody on, but part of the reason is probably that good pitchers are
more likely to produce such situations.)

> In addition, a good team can often knock a starting pitcher out of the
> game earlier, thus forcing the other team to go to what is usually a
> worse pitcher in the bullpen.

Again, I don't think this is much of an effect. And unlike the above
effects, this type of effect should be considered in the MVP voting; if
an average player would hit .270 with team A and .275 with team B, then
a .330 hitter with team A is as valuable as a .335 hitter with team B.

Probably more significant than any of your effects is the fact that a
player on a bad team doesn't get to face his own team's bad pitching
staff. Total Baseball accounts for this in its computation of park
effects.

--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email)
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner (note new Web page)
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.

[Dylan Bumbarger]

ddr...@imap1.asu.edu wrote:

:-- It's not based on the premise that certain players always "step it
:up." It's based (among other things) on the premise that certain players
:"stepped it up" in the past, which is *completely obvious*. Again, if

:you want to consider that a random fluctuation and not give them credit
:for it on your MVP ballot, that's reasonable. But don't ridicule those
:that do.

:-- But it doesn't just have to be about clutch performance. A walk

:followed by a homer is more valuable than a homer followed by a walk.
:If two players have identical seasons (hitting, say 40 dingers) but all
:of one player's homers follow a walk and all of the other player's come
:with the bases empty, the first player's performance was more valuable.

:Once again, you can choose to ignore that on your MVP ballot with an
:argument along the lines of: I shouldn't reward this guy because he had
:a better hitter in front of him. That's fine with me. But you *cannot*
:ignore the fact that his homers were more valuable.

I agree with that 100%. But that's not the way "context" is usually
used with the MVP debate, and I don't believe that was the way Mr.
Schenker was using it. I thought Mr. Schenker was using the late
inning/early inning/game situation stuff as an analogy to players
performing in a pennant race/out of a pennant race, hence the "is what
Tony Gwynn did REALLY valuable, since he did it out of a pennant race"
comment. THAT'S where the "best" vs. "most valuable" thing comes up,
because people assume that performing well on a bad team has no value.
I have yet to see someone explain why a player improving his team by
10 games to win the division is more valuable than a player improving
his team by 10 games to keep them out of last place. ALL the games
have value.

[Raymond Diperna]

is.pitt.edu> <60j84p$2...@news.asu.edu>:
Distribution:

ddr...@imap1.asu.edu wrote:

: Raymond Diperna (rads...@pitt.edu) wrote:
: : J. D. Schenker (jd...@UAkron.Edu) wrote:

: : : The thing I don't understand is that people disagree with picking the MVP
: : : from the pool of contending teams, yet no one really says how the MVP
: : : should be picked.

: : The best player should be given the MVP.

: Again I ask why?

Because he was the most valuable player. Frankly, I don't have a clue why
people insist on looking at the team's position in the standings when
determining the MVP. It makes no sense at all to me to look at a player's
TEAMMATES when trying to figure out the value of that PLAYER.

: Are you saying that the best player is *necessarily*
: the most valuable?

Yes. The claim that somehow a great player should be able to
single-handedly take a bad team into contention represents a fundamental
misunderstanding of how baseball games are won, and represents a
ridiculously absurd overstatement of an individual player's possible
impact on a team.

There are at least 20 players making significant contributions to a team's
performance. To blame 1 player for the team's failures, or credit 1
player with the team's success, is ludicrous.

Do you think that 1996 "MVP" Juan Gonzalez could have led last year's
Tigers to contention had he been on the team?

: Or are you saying that if the best player doesn't

: happen to be the most valuable, that the award should be given to the
: best rather than the most valuable?

No; the best _is_ the most valuable.

: If you're saying the former, you are
: wrong.

Why?

: If the latter, I think you should recognize that

: you're stating an opinion. It is, IMHO, a very reasonable opinion, but
: it's not the only reasonable opinion.

: [Hypothetical example snipped]

: : : The first player had the better performance, but it didn't amount

: : : to much value, as he didn't get the hits at the right times, some of which
: : : might not be his fault, but some of it might be. I'd rather have a player
: : : that gets hits in clutch situations than a player who gets hits that don't
: : : translate into runs, regardless of their batting averages.

: : Well, a few comments here:

: : 1) Which players are these that get most of their hits only in "clutch
: : situations"? Please supply a list of such players (this shouldn't be hard
: : to do, given that your entire argument is based on this premise).

: I don't want to put words in J.D.'s mouth because I don't know what he

: had in mind. But I'd like to point out that (a) he didn't say "most" of
: his hits in clutch situations, and (b) finding a list of players who have
: hit better in clutch situations is *absurdly easy*. D Easley (947 OPS in
: late inning pressure situations), Chili Davis (1124), G Jeffries (an even
: thousand). It took me less than five minutes to find these guys and I
: could've found 20 more in a half-hour.

As you note below, these players peformed better in clutch situations
*this* year, but one data point is not evidence that any of these
players are "clutch hitters." You've got to find players who perform
significantly better in "clutch situations" than non-clutch situations,
year after year. This might take you more than five minutes. When you
have a list together, I'd be interested in seeing it.

: : 2) Which players are these that come through mostly in "NON-clutch

: : situations"? Please supply a list of such players (again, it should be
: : very easy for you to find many such players, if your statements represent
: : reality).

: Will Clark (533), S Rolen (735), Jeff Kent (666--this one is interesting
: for several reasons.).

See my comments above, but take the inverse of them.

: Yes. I'm playing dumb here. I know that there's no reason to believe

: that Greg Jeffries will hit better than Scott Rolen in clutch situations
: next year.

Thus, no reason to believe that "clutch hitters" exist.

: But that doesn't alter the fact that he has hit better in

: clutch situations this year, and that that might cause the "value" of his
: performance to have been greater than the "quality" of his performance
: would suggest.

I don't disagree with you here. But that's not what the poster I was
responding to was arguing. He said that he "would rather have a player
that gets hits in clutch situations than a player that gets hits that
don't translate into runs, regardless of their batting averages." This is
a statement about a player's *present* abilities, not about breaking down
a player's *past* performance to find that he actually hit much better
in clutch situations, and that, although random, might be valuable.

The poster's entire point (and you've snipped most of his comments) was
that there are players who hit better in lopsided games, or in non-clutch
situations, etc, and these players have actual clutch-hitting ability.

: : : The point we are trying to make is that a "better" performance does

: : : not always translate to more "value".

: : The point is silly, because it's based on the premise that certain
: : players "step it up" in the clutch, when there's no evidence at all that
: : such players exist.

: Again, I don't want to speak for J.D. because I'm not exactly sure what

: he meant by this, but if you just look at that quote ("The point we ...
: 'value'"), the assertion it makes is clear. It's not "silly" for a couple
: of reasons:

: -- It's not based on the premise that certain players always "step it

: up." It's based (among other things) on the premise that certain players
: "stepped it up" in the past, which is *completely obvious*.

That's not the point the poster appeared to be arguing.

: Again, if

: you want to consider that a random fluctuation and not give them credit
: for it on your MVP ballot, that's reasonable. But don't ridicule those
: that do.

: You can quote me on this: CLUTCH HITTING EXISTS.

Obviously. But there's no evidence that "clutch hitters" exist.

: The ironic thing is

: that you hear things like "studies have shown clutch hitting doesn't
: exist" around here all the time. Wrong. Studies have shown clutch
: hitting *ability* doesn't exist. In order to conduct such a study, you
: have to *assume* clutch hitting exists.

: -- But it doesn't just have to be about clutch performance. A walk

: followed by a homer is more valuable than a homer followed by a walk.
: If two players have identical seasons (hitting, say 40 dingers) but all
: of one player's homers follow a walk and all of the other player's come
: with the bases empty, the first player's performance was more valuable.

I don't disagree that the first player's performance might *in fact* be
more valuable; I _do_ disagree that the first player's performance was
caused by his "clutch hitting ability," as opposed to simple randomness.

: Once again, you can choose to ignore that on your MVP ballot with an

: argument along the lines of: I shouldn't reward this guy because he had
: a better hitter in front of him. That's fine with me. But you *cannot*
: ignore the fact that his homers were more valuable.

I'm just not into rewarding players based on the luck of who's hitting in
front of them, or behind them, or how much "fear" they strike into
pitchers, etc. I'm interested in rewarding players based
upon their *performance*.

--------------------------------------------------------------
| Raymond DiPerna <rad...@pitt.edu> |
--------------------------------------------------------------

[James Weisberg]

I'm curious, but if you assume you a second that Piazza and
Walker and all the other MVP candidates were on par with Barry
Bonds, would the fact that Bonds was having a great month of
September to get his team into the playoffs have any bearing
on your MVP or not? A win in April is just as important as
a win in September, granted, but if you hit September and
you need an extra boost to get into the playoffs, is that of
any more value (or MVP consideration)?

[James Weisberg]

In article <60k1sb$a...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,

Raymond Diperna <rads...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>Do you think that 1996 "MVP" Juan Gonzalez could have led last year's
>Tigers to contention had he been on the team?

No. And with the exact same performance, he *would not* have
been MVP. Lemme guess. You find that odd? Gonzalez + Rangers ==
MVP. Gonzalez + Tigers != MVP. The argument boils down to what
I described as "contextual value". You can watch a really crappy
movie with a fine performance by one of its actors. Or you can
watch a really good movie with a fine performance by one if its
actors. The latter gets the Oscar, in most circumstances. The
reason is contextually, that performance was more valuable even
though the performances by the individuals were on par with
eachother.

[Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira]

In <jds4-27099...@michigan36-88.infoserv.uakron.edu> jd...@UAkron.Edu (J. D. Schenker) writes:

>In article <60i8gs$6...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
>(Raymond Diperna) wrote:

>I don't have a complete book of stats for this year, but I certainly think
>one could figure it out. I'm not just talking about people who get most
>of their hits in clutch situations, just a large portion of them. They
>have stats for BA with runners on, batting average with runners in scoring
>position, etc. Perhaps you've heard of these? Two of the best clutch
>hitters this year on the Indians for example are Tony Fernandez and
>Marquis Grisson, even though their overall BA's are not that high.
>>

Fernandez has hit about as well with runners on as with no runners on,; he
has hit well in late inning pressure situations. What that means is that
Fernandez has about 4 extra hits in lips, which means very little overall.

>Let me ask you a question. It's the bottom of the ninth, bases loaded,
>two outs, and your team is down by one run. Who do you want to see coming
>to bat? Do you base this simply on their BA?

That and their OBP.

I don't, at least not
>entirely. I base it on having watched them perform in other similar
>situations.

Why? Even if there were proven clutch hitters, the human brain would
be totally unable to figure out who they were based on memory.

>I never said that good "clutch hitters" slack off in non-clutch
>situations. A good clutch hitter can be a good hitter in other situations
>as well. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Again, Tony
>Fernandez is not only good at "clutch hitting"

This would be news to his previous teams in the last few years, when he's
done badly in LIPS.

>> The point is silly, because it's based on the premise that certain
>> players "step it up" in the clutch, when there's no evidence at all that
>> such players exist.

>No evidence at all? There are stats that reflect "clutch hitting." See above.
>>

These stats reflect clutch hitting. They do not reflect clutch hitters.
Clutch hitting obviously exists, and some players do better than others
as far as clutch hitting over a period of time. However, no one has yet
found any significant predictive value in major league clutch hitting stats
(and lord knows its been looked for). There's no reason to think that
a player who has done well in the clutch in the past will continue to do well.
And since that's the case, while its perfectly reasonable to count clutch
hitting in a player's favor (in the context of opportunities)when
determing how valuable the player has been, its silly
to consider such information when looking towards the future or when
determining who are the better players.

>Let me ask a question that perhaps might help the discussion. Barry Bonds
>is often considered the best player in the NL and Ken Griffey, Jr. in the
>Al. (I'm not sure I entirely agree, but for the sake of argument, let's
>say they are.) What makes these players the "best"?

Getting on base, slugging, baserunning, and defense.

Greg

[ddr...@imap1.asu.edu]

Raymond Diperna (rads...@pitt.edu) wrote:
: is.pitt.edu> <60j84p$2...@news.asu.edu>:

: ddr...@imap1.asu.edu wrote:

: : : The best player should be given the MVP.

: : Again I ask why?

: Because he was the most valuable player. Frankly, I don't have a clue why
: people insist on looking at the team's position in the standings when
: determining the MVP. It makes no sense at all to me to look at a player's
: TEAMMATES when trying to figure out the value of that PLAYER.

I never claimed position in the standings should be considered. There
are 2 arguments going on here, and I probably confused the issue by
including the portions of J.D. Schenker's post which I agreed with.
These portions did not constitute the main thrust of his argument, which
is what you seem to be so opposed to. That was my fault. I don't want
to get into the "postition in the standings debate" at all.

: : Are you saying that the best player is *necessarily*
: : the most valuable?

: Yes. The claim that somehow a great player should be able to
: single-handedly take a bad team into contention represents a fundamental
: misunderstanding of how baseball games are won, and represents a
: ridiculously absurd overstatement of an individual player's possible
: impact on a team.

That has nothing to do with my point, which I'll restate here in
different terms. Even if we knew *exactly* how many RUNS every player
was responsible for adding (which we don't, but we think we have some
pretty good approximations--RC, EqA, etc.), we still wouldn't know who
was responsible for adding more WINS without doing some further
investigation. I.e. even if we knew the exact "quality" of everyone's
performance, we can't say for sure whose performance had the most impact
(or "value"). In other words, the best player isn't *necessarily* the
most valuable.

: : Or are you saying that if the best player doesn't

: : happen to be the most valuable, that the award should be given to the
: : best rather than the most valuable?

: No; the best _is_ the most valuable.

: : If you're saying the former, you are
: : wrong.

: Why?

See above.

[long clutch hitting discussion snipped, Raymond and I both agree that
clutch hitting exists but that clutch hitters almost certainly do not.]

: : -- But it doesn't just have to be about clutch performance. A walk

: : followed by a homer is more valuable than a homer followed by a walk.
: : If two players have identical seasons (hitting, say 40 dingers) but all
: : of one player's homers follow a walk and all of the other player's come
: : with the bases empty, the first player's performance was more valuable.

: I don't disagree that the first player's performance might *in fact* be
: more valuable; I _do_ disagree that the first player's performance was
: caused by his "clutch hitting ability," as opposed to simple randomness.

: : Once again, you can choose to ignore that on your MVP ballot with an
: : argument along the lines of: I shouldn't reward this guy because he had
: : a better hitter in front of him. That's fine with me. But you *cannot*
: : ignore the fact that his homers were more valuable.

: I'm just not into rewarding players based on the luck of who's hitting in
: front of them, or behind them, or how much "fear" they strike into
: pitchers, etc. I'm interested in rewarding players based
: upon their *performance*.

If I'm mis-reading your tone, Raymond, I apologize, but you seem awfully
condescending toward anyone who doesn't agree with you. This is *not* a
matter of right or wrong. You just said, in essence, I agree that forces
beyond the control of an individual can have an effect on his *value*,
but people shouldn't take that into consideration on their Most
*Valuable* Player award ballot.

This amounts to saying that you'd prefer to vote for the guy who *would
have been* more valuable *if* he'd had good luck than the guy who *was*
more valuable *because* he had good luck.

As I said earlier, that's a justifiable opinion. But it doesn't put you
in much of a position to dispute the other one.

Doug

[dlo...@inlink.nospam.com]

On 25 Sep 1997 18:24:08 -0500, chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James
Weisberg) wrote:

>In article <60emat$hv7$1...@news.dmv.com>, John Krempasky <jo...@dmv.com> wrote:
>>jd...@UAkron.Edu (J. D. Schenker) wrote:
>>
>> I would have a difficult time giving the MVP award to a good
>>>player on a last place team, even if he is far and away the best player in
>>>the league, because the team could have certainly "achieved" last place
>>>without him. Yes, this sucks for good players on bad teams, but how can
>>>you say that the most valuable player in the league is all that valuable
>>>if they can't keep their team out of the bottom of their division?
>>
>> Well, to be brutally honest, I find this the absolute DUMBEST, most
>>completely incomprensible widely popular opinion in baseball. I have
>>no idea how it developed and what sustains it.
>

> What sustains it is that the MVP award has historically gone
>to an individual on a contending team. The idea being that the
>term "most valuable" contains the notion that the "value is
>well spent" i.e. the team accomplished something with the
>valuable performance of its player. The MVP does not reflect
>the "best player".

Explain Andre Dawson 1987. Jack Clark deserved that award.

> I tend to agree that it's pointless to give an MVP award to
>a player on non-contending team. The argument that had that
>player been on a contending team, he would have received the

>MVP is of no consequence. It's not that his performance was

[Dylan Bumbarger]

chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James Weisberg) wrote:

:In article <60k1sb$a...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
:Raymond Diperna <rads...@pitt.edu> wrote:
:>Do you think that 1996 "MVP" Juan Gonzalez could have led last year's

:>Tigers to contention had he been on the team?

: No. And with the exact same performance, he *would not* have

:been MVP. Lemme guess. You find that odd? Gonzalez + Rangers ==
:MVP. Gonzalez + Tigers != MVP.

Except you're not giving it to Gonzalez + Rangers (who wouldn't have
deserved it anyway). You're giving it to Gonzalez.

If you give the award on that basis, what, exactly, are you rewarding
someone for?

: The argument boils down to what

:I described as "contextual value". You can watch a really crappy
:movie with a fine performance by one of its actors. Or you can
:watch a really good movie with a fine performance by one if its
:actors. The latter gets the Oscar, in most circumstances. The
:reason is contextually, that performance was more valuable even
:though the performances by the individuals were on par with
:eachother.

To me, that's about as good as one can do in defending the way the MVP
is currently voted on: "It's no worse than the Oscars."

[David Heeding]

David Marc Nieporent <niep...@pluto.njcc.com> wrote in article
<60frnp$6p5$1...@mars.njcc.com>...

>
> Right. That's the complaint many of us have. That the MVP voting
doesn't
> reflect the best player, as it should.
>

I've begun to think that the problem is in the name - "Most Valuable" -
which has been taken by many people to imply value in a situational context
rather than the inherent value standing alone in the individual. (Maybe if
they called it "Player Of The Year" there wouldn't be this problem.) This
has always annoyed me. I don't understand why an award for individual
accomplishment needs to be dependent on the performance of others on his
team. And it creates such weird contradictions. Only players on good
teams should be worthy of the award - but beware if the team is too good
'cause then the player's contribution isn't very important anyway. (The
Vaughn/Belle dispute) Besides, there are already lots of rewards for team
success. They come in the form of pennants and rings and post season play
and associated acclaim.

I agree. It should just simply be for the player who performed the best.

David

[James Weisberg]

In article <342de7d2...@news.inlink.com>,

<dlo...@inlink.nospam.com> wrote:
>> What sustains it is that the MVP award has historically gone
>>to an individual on a contending team. The idea being that the
>>term "most valuable" contains the notion that the "value is
>>well spent" i.e. the team accomplished something with the
>>valuable performance of its player. The MVP does not reflect
>>the "best player".
>
>Explain Andre Dawson 1987. Jack Clark deserved that award.

I'm not sure I can. It was an aberration. Maybe no one
liked Jack Clark. Maybe Dawson hypnotised everyone. Clark
was clearly a better player that year, which supports the
claim that MVP does not reflect the "best player". And
Dawson led the league in HRs and RBIs (the two big
categories the media loves). But Dawson was the first
person to win the MVP on a last place team. It's highly
unlikely that will happen much in the future.

[DCRounds]

From: chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James Weisberg)

No. If Bonds had reversed his April and September hitting, the outcome
would have been exactly the same. He would not have to have had a great
September for the Giants to win the division.

[DCRounds]

From: David Grabiner <grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu>

>This is why I ignore runs scored and RBI's in MVP voting; they are team
statistics. If a run scores on three singles, the third player gets the
RBI; this gives him credit for his own hit, and for the work the other
two players did in putting a runner on second base.

I agree. OB and Slg averages are much more important.

[Dane Sei Muramoto]

DCRounds (dcro...@aol.com) wrote:
: No. If Bonds had reversed his April and September hitting, the outcome

: would have been exactly the same. He would not have to have had a great
: September for the Giants to win the division.

Although I think the MVP should go to the player who is MVP of the league
-- not a team -- I must say the above statement is inaccurate. If Bonds,
indeed, had his April and September numbers reversed, it would have led
the Giants to a possibly worse record. After all, didn't the Giants start
the season on fire? In that manner, Bonds' numbers would not have helped
much in April. However, they did help a bunch in September.

[James Tuttle]

> David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> >
> > Right. That's the complaint many of us have. That the MVP voting
> > doesn't reflect the best player, as it should.

and then David Heeding said:

> I've begun to think that the problem is in the name - "Most Valuable"

> -- which has been taken by many people to imply value in a situational

> context rather than the inherent value standing alone in the
> individual. (Maybe if they called it "Player Of The Year" there
> wouldn't be this problem.) This has always annoyed me. I don't
> understand why an award for individual accomplishment needs to be
> dependent on the performance of others on his team. And it creates
> such weird contradictions. Only players on good teams should be
> worthy of the award - but beware if the team is too good 'cause then
> the player's contribution isn't very important anyway. (The Vaughn/
> Belle dispute) Besides, there are already lots of rewards for team
> success. They come in the form of pennants and rings and post season
> play and associated acclaim.
>
> I agree. It should just simply be for the player who performed the
> best.

The two Davids have unwittingly answered their own concerns, and they're
both unhappy with the outcome. Both want the MVP award to go to the
best player, but it doesn't. It goes to the player who's most valuable
to his team, and that may not be the best player in the league. The two
Davids, along with many others, are not happy with this, but they should
accept things for what they are and not make things into what they
aren't.

If the Davids want a "best player" award, they should lobby for one.
But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's not
intended to be.

[James Weisberg]

In article <19970928205...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

DCRounds <dcro...@aol.com> wrote:
>From: chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James Weisberg)
>
>> I'm curious, but if you assume you a second that Piazza and
>Walker and all the other MVP candidates were on par with Barry
>Bonds, would the fact that Bonds was having a great month of
>September to get his team into the playoffs have any bearing
>on your MVP or not? A win in April is just as important as
>a win in September, granted, but if you hit September and
>you need an extra boost to get into the playoffs, is that of
>any more value (or MVP consideration)?
>

>No. If Bonds had reversed his April and September hitting, the outcome
>would have been exactly the same. He would not have to have had a great
>September for the Giants to win the division.

Yes, I acknowledged this. But there is more pressure to
win in September and Barry certainly came thru.

[David Marc Nieporent]

In <342E65...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> claimed:
>> David Marc Nieporent wrote:

>> > Right. That's the complaint many of us have. That the MVP voting
>> > doesn't reflect the best player, as it should.

>and then David Heeding said:

>> I've begun to think that the problem is in the name - "Most Valuable"
>> -- which has been taken by many people to imply value in a situational
>> context rather than the inherent value standing alone in the
>> individual. (Maybe if they called it "Player Of The Year" there
>> wouldn't be this problem.) This has always annoyed me. I don't
>> understand why an award for individual accomplishment needs to be
>> dependent on the performance of others on his team. And it creates
>> such weird contradictions. Only players on good teams should be
>> worthy of the award - but beware if the team is too good 'cause then
>> the player's contribution isn't very important anyway. (The Vaughn/
>> Belle dispute) Besides, there are already lots of rewards for team
>> success. They come in the form of pennants and rings and post season
>> play and associated acclaim.
>> I agree. It should just simply be for the player who performed the
>> best.

>The two Davids have unwittingly answered their own concerns, and they're
>both unhappy with the outcome. Both want the MVP award to go to the
>best player, but it doesn't. It goes to the player who's most valuable
>to his team,

Where do you see "to his team?" in the phrase Most Valuable Player?

>and that may not be the best player in the league.

No, *that's* what I disagree with. I think the best player in the league
is, by definition, the Most Valuable Player.

>The two
>Davids, along with many others, are not happy with this, but they should
>accept things for what they are and not make things into what they
>aren't.

Why should I accept a misinterpretation rather than correcting the people
who make the mistake?

>If the Davids want a "best player" award, they should lobby for one.

We have one. It's called the MVP award.

>But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's not
>intended to be.

Er, sez who? Where did you derive this "intent" from? As far as I know,
the only guideline MLB offers is that voters must be willing to vote for
pitchers. So whose mind are you reading to come up with the idea that the
intent of the award was something different than Player of the Year?

--
David M. Nieporent How about that! I looked something up!
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu These books behind me don't just make the
1L - St. John's School of Law office look good, they're filled with
useful legal tidbits just like that! - L Hutz

[terry w. luster]

In article <60mbj6$9...@miso.wwa.com>,

Jeez,Jack Clark had one monster of a strat-o-matic card from 1987!
Sorry,I had to say that.
T.Luster

[James Weisberg]

In article <60i8gs$6...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,

Raymond Diperna <rads...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>Well, a few comments here:
>
>1) Which players are these that get most of their hits only in "clutch
>situations"? Please supply a list of such players (this shouldn't be hard
>to do, given that your entire argument is based on this premise).

You are baiting someone to get into an argument about the
existence of hitting in the clutch when you know that the
researchers in this group have found no such evidence to its
existence. However, over the course of a single season, one
can look at LIPS measures and RISP measures, and general
performance in "crucial" games and derive some metric for
"clutch" performance. These measures might not hold up
under close scrutiny; and they might not mean much with
a small sample size, but the point is that the candidate
might have done well in those situations and that's what
MVP voters remember and those players could get votes for
being "clutch" performers.
For example, Barry Bonds was a *huge* performer down the
stretch for the Giants this year. Had some of the other
candidates not had significantly better/valuable year-long
seasons, he would get my vote for MVP, partially because
of his September performance.

[James Tuttle]

David Marc Nieporent wrote:

>
> James Tuttle wrote:
>
> >The two Davids have unwittingly answered their own concerns, and
> >they're both unhappy with the outcome. Both want the MVP award to go
> >to the best player, but it doesn't. It goes to the player who's most
> >valuable to his team,
>
> Where do you see "to his team?" in the phrase Most Valuable Player?

It's implied. Most valuable to whom? To his team. Who else could it
be? The league president?

> >and that may not be the best player in the league.
>
> No, *that's* what I disagree with. I think the best player in the
> league is, by definition, the Most Valuable Player.

I know that's what you think, and you're wrong.

> >The two Davids, along with many others, are not happy with this, but
> >they should accept things for what they are and not make things into
> >what they aren't.
>
> Why should I accept a misinterpretation rather than correcting the
> people who make the mistake?

You're the one doing the misinterpreting. Yoiu seem to believe that the
people who invented this award made a mistake, but that can't be; they
can invent an award for anything they like.

> >If the Davids want a "best player" award, they should lobby for one.
>
> We have one. It's called the MVP award.

That's where you're wrong.

> >But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's not
> >intended to be.
>
> Er, sez who? Where did you derive this "intent" from? As far as I
> know, the only guideline MLB offers is that voters must be willing to
> vote for pitchers. So whose mind are you reading to come up with the
> idea that the intent of the award was something different than Player
> of the Year?

Look, if you want a Best Player or a Player of the Year award, then
lobby for one. The MVP is not that; it's for the "most valuable." Most
valuable to whom? Most valuable to his team. Plain English. That is
not the same as "Player of the Year" or "Best Player."

[James Tuttle]

Paul Antonissen wrote:

>
> James Tuttle wrote:
>
> >Look, if you want a Best Player or a Player of the Year award, then
> >lobby for one. The MVP is not that; it's for the "most valuable."
> >Most valuable to whom? Most valuable to his team. Plain English.
> >That is not the same as "Player of the Year" or "Best Player."
>

> Why not? If player A is not as good as player B, how in the world is
> player B more valuable?

Good question. Suppose A and B are on the same team, and B is the
better player with better stats. But A is a good player too, and he's
more spirited -- a real Clubhouse Leader who inspires his team. On the
fiels he's a scrappy guy who goes all out to win. B, on the other hand,
is a workaday player with sort of a laid-back attitude who inspires
nobody.

The team wins their division and everybody agrees that they couldn't
have done it without A, because of all the inspiration he provided. He
made everybody a better player, including B.

The team probably couldn't have won without B either, but A was the more
valuable.

[Paul Antonissen]

In article <342FAE...@daedal.net>, j...@daedal.net wrote:

[deletia]

>Look, if you want a Best Player or a Player of the Year award, then
>lobby for one. The MVP is not that; it's for the "most valuable." Most
>valuable to whom? Most valuable to his team. Plain English. That is
>not the same as "Player of the Year" or "Best Player."

Why not? If player A is not as good as player B, how in the world is
player B more valuable?

***************************************************************
-Herr Pauly

"I pragmatically turn my whims into principles." -Calvin

[Raymond Diperna]

is.pitt.edu> <jds4-27099...@michigan36-88.infoserv.uakron.edu>:
Distribution:

J. D. Schenker (jd...@UAkron.Edu) wrote:

: In article <60i8gs$6...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
: (Raymond Diperna) wrote:

: > The best player should be given the MVP.

: There you go again. Let me rephrase it. What criteria would you use to

: choose an MVP, or the "best player"? You complain about my "silly" way of
: doing it later on in your post, but yet you still don't say how you would
: do it.

In a nutshell, for the hitters I would look at OBP, SLG, number of plate
appearances, defensive position played, and defensive performance. To a
much lesser extent, I would glance at SB/CS, although stolen bases are
very overrated and don't add much value; but they do count for something.
Also, depending on the candidates, I'd probably glance at the park they
played in.

Things I would *not* consider: Runs, RBI, the team they played on, who
hit in front of them or behind them or above them, or wherever else people
look rather than focusing on the player.

We seem to be talking about hitters in this thread, so I'll reserve my
comments about pitching; except to say that, although I vote for pitchers
on my personal ballot, I don't think they should be included in the MVP.
This is *not* because I don't think pitchers can be the "most valuable
player," but it is simply because the pitchers have their own award,
namely the Cy Young. I don't see how it's fair to make pitchers eligible
for both major awards, thus leaving open the possibility that no position
player will be recognized.

: In addition, what if someone who is far and away the "best player"
: is also injured half the season? Do you still give him the MVP?

Most likely not (note that above, I explain that I factor plate
appearances into my analysis), unless the player hit like
Babe-Ruth-on-a-hot-streak for half a season. Basically, to deal with
injuries, I would take the player's stats and then fill the missing plate
appearances in with replacement-level numbers. Combining the two, I'd
have a total to compare with the other candidates.

: I guess it depends on how you determine the "best player" which I still
: don't know.

Hopefully, I've explained enough about how *I* would do it. Obviously,
other people have different methodologies.

[snip]

: It's just a general example. The point is, based on limited information,

: you can't choose the MVP, but that's what people do. It seems to go
: typically to power hitters with alot of RBI's, which is kind of odd to me,
: because using just RBI's and number of HR's is counting some of the same
: runs twice.

I agree that using just RBIs and HRs is a problematic method.

: > : The first player had the better performance, but it didn't amount
: > : to much value, as he didn't get the hits at the right times, some of which
: > : might not be his fault, but some of it might be. I'd rather have a player
: > : that gets hits in clutch situations than a player who gets hits that don't
: > : translate into runs, regardless of their batting averages.
: >

: > Well, a few comments here:

: >
: > 1) Which players are these that get most of their hits only in "clutch
: > situations"? Please supply a list of such players (this shouldn't be hard
: > to do, given that your entire argument is based on this premise).

: I don't have a complete book of stats for this year, but I certainly think
: one could figure it out. I'm not just talking about people who get most
: of their hits in clutch situations, just a large portion of them. They

: have stats for BA with runners on, batting average with runners in scoring
: position, etc. Perhaps you've heard of these?

Yes, I have. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying that some
players hit very well in clutch situations during a particular season? If
so, I agree with you. However, if you're claiming that there are players
who hit significantly better in clutch situations than in non-clutch
situations, year after year, then I would disagree with you.

[snip]

: Let me ask you a question. It's the bottom of the ninth, bases loaded,

: two outs, and your team is down by one run. Who do you want to see coming
: to bat? Do you base this simply on their BA?

No, I'd look at OBP. With the bases loaded, any way that the hitter can
reach base safely would tie the game. If two players had similar OBPs,
then I'd look at batting average, because a hit would likely win the game.

: I don't, at least not

: entirely. I base it on having watched them perform in other similar
: situations.

But have you seen all the players perform in similar situations, so that
you have a basis for comparison? And how do you catalogue this
information in your head, without needing to record your observations,
like most human beings do?

If you _can_ do this in your head, may I suggest that you quit your job
immediately and contact President Clinton about your first assignment?
Your country needs you.

[David Marc Nieporent]

In <60h4dk$f...@news.asu.edu>, <ddr...@imap1.asu.edu> claimed:
>David Marc Nieporent (niep...@pluto.njcc.com) wrote:

>[Summary of snipped material:
>Person A: The MVP shouldn't go to a player on a last-place team.
>Person B: This is DUMB. Why do people think this?
>Person C: Because the award has historically gone to someone on a
>contending team. It hasn't always gone to the *best* player.]

>: Right. That's the complaint many of us have. That the MVP voting doesn't

>: reflect the best player, as it should.

>Why *should* it?

For the same reason Shawn Boskie doesn't deserve the Cy Young this year?

>: What I don't understand is this incessant focus -- from you and the
>: earlier poster -- on the team's *position,* as opposed to the team's
>: *record.*

>As far as I'm concerned, people can interpret MVP as "most *valuable*
>player" or "best player" as they see fit. You can choose to consider
>"context" or not. It's a matter of personal preference. But if you
>consider context, you should look at the position, and not the record.

My point in mentioning this was to dispute the sort of statement like
"Player X [let's call him Tony Gwynn] doesn't deserve the MVP award
because his team finished 4th and it would have finished fourth without
him." Why can't we say "Gwynn deserves the MVP because his team finished
with 70 wins and it would have finished with only 60 without him"?

(For illustrative purposes only. Gwynn ain't worth 10 wins and doesn't
deserve to be a candidate.)

>Consider three singles: one hit in the ninth inning of a 9-0 game, one
>hit in the ninth inning of an 11-10 game, one in the ninth of a 1-0
>game. The first is likely to be the least valuable. The second 2 were
>equally valuable (all else equal, of course). Your argument that record
>should be a greater consideration than position (though I realize you'd
>consider neither, which is certainly a reasonable viewpoint) is like saying
>score is more important than relative score. Who cares whether my team
>has 11 runs or 1 run when that hit occurs? What's important is that my
>team had a one-run lead.
>Value comes from a combination of quality and context, and an important
>part of that context, in this case, is the records of the teams
>you're competing against.

But of course that argument boils down to "the MVP is the best player on
the team that won by the smallest margin," and I don't think people really
believe that.

[Paul Antonissen]

In article <34301B...@daedal.net>, j...@daedal.net wrote:

>Paul Antonissen wrote:
>>
>> James Tuttle wrote:
>>

>> >Look, if you want a Best Player or a Player of the Year award, then
>> >lobby for one. The MVP is not that; it's for the "most valuable."
>> >Most valuable to whom? Most valuable to his team. Plain English.
>> >That is not the same as "Player of the Year" or "Best Player."
>>
>> Why not? If player A is not as good as player B, how in the world is
>> player B more valuable?
>

>Good question. Suppose A and B are on the same team, and B is the
>better player with better stats. But A is a good player too, and he's
>more spirited -- a real Clubhouse Leader who inspires his team. On the
>fiels he's a scrappy guy who goes all out to win. B, on the other hand,
>is a workaday player with sort of a laid-back attitude who inspires
>nobody.

How do you measure this?

>The team wins their division and everybody agrees that they couldn't
>have done it without A, because of all the inspiration he provided. He
>made everybody a better player, including B.
>
>The team probably couldn't have won without B either, but A was the more
>valuable.

Until it's possible to measure those intangibles (I guess they'd no longer
be intangible), I'll take the "laid-back" player whose contributions can
be measured with reasonable accuracy.

[Paul Antonissen]

In article <60q09i$t...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
(Raymond Diperna) wrote:

>.com>:
>Distribution:
>
>Paul Antonissen (cati...@deltanet.com) wrote:

>: In article <342FAE...@daedal.net>, j...@daedal.net wrote:
>
>: [deletia]
>

>: >Look, if you want a Best Player or a Player of the Year award, then

>: >lobby for one. The MVP is not that; it's for the "most valuable." Most
>: >valuable to whom? Most valuable to his team. Plain English. That is
>: >not the same as "Player of the Year" or "Best Player."
>
>: Why not? If player A is not as good as player B, how in the world is
>: player B more valuable?
>

>Are you trying to be logical, or something? There's very little room for
>that type of reasoning with MVP voting.

I did mix up players A & B. It should read:

If player A is not as good as player B, how in the world is player A more
valuable?

>--------------------------------------------------------------
>| Raymond DiPerna <rad...@pitt.edu> |
>--------------------------------------------------------------

***************************************************************

[Dan Szymborski]

David Marc Nieporent <niep...@pluto.njcc.com> wrote in article

<60q9vi$o6d$1...@mars.njcc.com>...

<snipped article>

> But of course that argument boils down to "the MVP is the best player on
> the team that won by the smallest margin," and I don't think people
really
> believe that.
>

Actually, the media's argument is probably "The MVP is the best player on
the team that won by the smallest margin unless there were other players
that were almost as good in which case it goes to the best player on the
the team that won by the second smallest margin."

[Raymond Diperna]

Paul Antonissen (cati...@deltanet.com) wrote:
: In article <60q09i$t...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, rads...@pitt.edu
: (Raymond Diperna) wrote:

: >.com>:
: >Distribution:
: >
: >Paul Antonissen (cati...@deltanet.com) wrote:
: >: In article <342FAE...@daedal.net>, j...@daedal.net wrote:
: >
: >: [deletia]
: >
: >: >Look, if you want a Best Player or a Player of the Year award, then
: >: >lobby for one. The MVP is not that; it's for the "most valuable." Most
: >: >valuable to whom? Most valuable to his team. Plain English. That is
: >: >not the same as "Player of the Year" or "Best Player."
: >
: >: Why not? If player A is not as good as player B, how in the world is
: >: player B more valuable?
: >
: >Are you trying to be logical, or something? There's very little room for
: >that type of reasoning with MVP voting.

: I did mix up players A & B. It should read:

: If player A is not as good as player B, how in the world is player A more
: valuable?

Although I didn't pick up on your error initially, I understood what your
statement was supposed to read.

My answer to this is: I have no idea how Player A could be more valuable.
The typical arguments advanced are: protection, leadership, fear,
inspiration, quality of teammates, or bias disguised as your favorite
intangible.

[James Weisberg]

In article <60qad2$oo4$1...@mars.njcc.com>,
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>You're reading far too much into a word choice. The MVP = the Player of
>the Year. Just because they don't call it Player of the Year doesn't mean
>they intended to make a distinction.

I think you are clearly wrong here, David. The nebulous "they"
certainly do make a distinction, as the award historically does
not go to the "Player or the Year" or the player who contributes
the most wins to his team. And whatever their intentions were,
you cannot escape the reality that the MVP award is not the
best player of the year. And I still argue that best != most
valuable, anyway. The term "value" always takes into account
a context. American dollars are worthless in certain parts
of the world. Likewise, some performances are contextually
less valuable on non-contending teams. However, the best
player can play on any team, regardless of their record.

[Bob-Nob]

Dan Szymborski venit, vidit, et dixit:

> Actually, the media's argument is probably "The MVP is the best player on
> the team that won by the smallest margin unless there were other players
> that were almost as good in which case it goes to the best player on the
> the team that won by the second smallest margin."

Adding still more irony, the media then simply vote for the
person with the most RBIs.

Catch you later.
--Bob Machemer

--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer (Bob) | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Class of 1996 | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
ACRFC MVP, Teacher, Captain, Coach | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
"BOB IS NOB!"

[Raymond Diperna]

.com>:
Distribution:

Paul Antonissen (cati...@deltanet.com) wrote:
: In article <342FAE...@daedal.net>, j...@daedal.net wrote:

: [deletia]

: >Look, if you want a Best Player or a Player of the Year award, then
: >lobby for one. The MVP is not that; it's for the "most valuable." Most
: >valuable to whom? Most valuable to his team. Plain English. That is
: >not the same as "Player of the Year" or "Best Player."

: Why not? If player A is not as good as player B, how in the world is
: player B more valuable?

Are you trying to be logical, or something? There's very little room for
that type of reasoning with MVP voting.

--------------------------------------------------------------
| Raymond DiPerna <rad...@pitt.edu> |
--------------------------------------------------------------

[David Marc Nieporent]

In <342FAE...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> claimed:

>David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>> James Tuttle wrote:

>> >The two Davids have unwittingly answered their own concerns, and
>> >they're both unhappy with the outcome. Both want the MVP award to go
>> >to the best player, but it doesn't. It goes to the player who's most
>> >valuable to his team,

>> Where do you see "to his team?" in the phrase Most Valuable Player?

>It's implied. Most valuable to whom? To his team. Who else could it
>be? The league president?

It could be most valuable to the league as a whole.

>> >and that may not be the best player in the league.

>> No, *that's* what I disagree with. I think the best player in the
>> league is, by definition, the Most Valuable Player.

>I know that's what you think, and you're wrong.

No, I'm not It's not my fault if you don't know how to use a dictionary.

>> >The two Davids, along with many others, are not happy with this, but
>> >they should accept things for what they are and not make things into
>> >what they aren't.

>> Why should I accept a misinterpretation rather than correcting the
>> people who make the mistake?

>You're the one doing the misinterpreting. Yoiu seem to believe that the
>people who invented this award made a mistake, but that can't be; they
>can invent an award for anything they like.

Which spirits are you communing with? Which "people who invented this
award?" Where are you getting this information from?

>> >If the Davids want a "best player" award, they should lobby for one.

>> We have one. It's called the MVP award.

>That's where you're wrong.

>> >But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's not
>> >intended to be.

>> Er, sez who? Where did you derive this "intent" from? As far as I
>> know, the only guideline MLB offers is that voters must be willing to
>> vote for pitchers. So whose mind are you reading to come up with the
>> idea that the intent of the award was something different than Player
>> of the Year?

>Look, if you want a Best Player or a Player of the Year award, then

>lobby for one. The MVP is not that; it's for the "most valuable." Most
>valuable to whom? Most valuable to his team. Plain English. That is
>not the same as "Player of the Year" or "Best Player."

Plain English says that it is the same. The best player is the one who
adds the most wins to his team, which is, by definition, the most valuable
to his team.

If (say) Frank Thomas adds 10 wins to Chicago's record, and Tino Martinez
adds 6 wins to New York's record, how can Tino be more valuable to his
team? 10 > 6.

You're reading far too much into a word choice. The MVP = the Player of
the Year. Just because they don't call it Player of the Year doesn't mean
they intended to make a distinction.

[David Marc Nieporent]

In <34301B...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> claimed:

>Paul Antonissen wrote:
>> James Tuttle wrote:

>> >Look, if you want a Best Player or a Player of the Year award, then
>> >lobby for one. The MVP is not that; it's for the "most valuable."
>> >Most valuable to whom? Most valuable to his team. Plain English.
>> >That is not the same as "Player of the Year" or "Best Player."

>> Why not? If player A is not as good as player B, how in the world is
>> player B more valuable?

>Good question. Suppose A and B are on the same team, and B is the

>better player with better stats. But A is a good player too, and he's
>more spirited -- a real Clubhouse Leader who inspires his team. On the
>fiels he's a scrappy guy who goes all out to win. B, on the other hand,
>is a workaday player with sort of a laid-back attitude who inspires
>nobody.

Suppose they won because they really liked the last episode of ER and
were inspired by it. Should we make Anthony Edwards the MVP?

>The team wins their division and everybody agrees that they couldn't
>have done it without A, because of all the inspiration he provided. He
>made everybody a better player, including B.
>The team probably couldn't have won without B either, but A was the more
>valuable.

[Alan Shank]

James Weisberg wrote:
>
> In article <60qad2$oo4$1...@mars.njcc.com>,
> David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:

> >You're reading far too much into a word choice. The MVP = the Player of
> >the Year. Just because they don't call it Player of the Year doesn't mean
> >they intended to make a distinction.
>

> I think you are clearly wrong here, David. The nebulous "they"
> certainly do make a distinction, as the award historically does
> not go to the "Player or the Year" or the player who contributes
> the most wins to his team. And whatever their intentions were,
> you cannot escape the reality that the MVP award is not the
> best player of the year. And I still argue that best != most
> valuable, anyway. The term "value" always takes into account
> a context. American dollars are worthless in certain parts
> of the world. Likewise, some performances are contextually
> less valuable on non-contending teams. However, the best
> player can play on any team, regardless of their record.

I agree that MVP, as the voters perceive it, is not the same as "Player
of the Year." But there's an additional twist. One could argue that
Roger Clemens should get the MVP, because he was so much better than
anyone else on the Blue Jays. Without him, the Jays might have had the
worst record in baseball. OTOH, they finished last in their division
anyway, which they could have done without "Rocket." But he was probably
more valuable to Toronto, in terms of wins, than anybody else in the AL
was, compared to their teammates. Compare, though, the situation with
David Justice, Manny Ramirez and Jim Thome in Cleveland, all of whom had
great seasons. Should they be penalized because they all played for the
same team?

Once in a while, though, it seems like the MVP really was voted on as
though it were "Player of the Year," as when Robin Yount won it.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

[Dan Szymborski]

Bob-Nob <rpma...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote in article
<34311...@amhnt2.amherst.edu>...

> Dan Szymborski venit, vidit, et dixit:
>
> > Actually, the media's argument is probably "The MVP is the best player
on
> > the team that won by the smallest margin unless there were other
players
> > that were almost as good in which case it goes to the best player on
the
> > the team that won by the second smallest margin."
>
> Adding still more irony, the media then simply vote for the
> person with the most RBIs.
>
> Catch you later.
> --Bob Machemer

You're right, we need to factor that and a few other things in.

"The MVP is the best player on the team that won by the smallest margin
unless there were other players that were almost as good in which case it
goes to the best player on the the team that won by the second smallest

margin unless the best player on the team with the third smallest margin of
victory is a proven RBI guy, a clubhouse leader, and is a member of a club
with pretty numbers like 30/30 or .300/30/100 in which case it goes to that
player unless that player either has a lot of protection in the lineup or
is Barry Bonds who walks too much and as we all well know, walks suck."

[James Tuttle]

Paul Antonissen wrote:

> James Tuttle wrote:
> >
> >Suppose A and B are on the same team, and B is the
> >better player with better stats. But A is a good player too, and
> >he's more spirited -- a real Clubhouse Leader who inspires his team.

> >On the field he's a scrappy guy who goes all out to win. B, on the

> >other hand, is a workaday player with sort of a laid-back attitude
> >who inspires nobody.
>

> How do you measure this?

You don't have to. If the MVP depended on a measurement, they wouldn't
have to vote.

> >The team wins their division and everybody agrees that they couldn't
> >have done it without A, because of all the inspiration he provided.
> >He made everybody a better player, including B.
> >
> >The team probably couldn't have won without B either, but A was the
> >more valuable.
>

> Until it's possible to measure those intangibles (I guess they'd no
> longer be intangible), I'll take the "laid-back" player whose
> contributions can be measured with reasonable accuracy.

No measurements. Sportswriters vote, and they do consider the
intangibles.

Maybe you need a "Best Player" award for being closest to winning the
triple crown. You can measure that. No voting either.

[James Tuttle]

David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>
> James Tuttle wrote:
>
> >> Where do you see "to his team?" in the phrase Most Valuable Player?
>
> >It's implied. Most valuable to whom? To his team. Who else could
> >it be? The league president?
>
> It could be most valuable to the league as a whole.

No player strives for the glory of his league. His allegiance is to the
team.

> >> >and that may not be the best player in the league.
>
> >> No, *that's* what I disagree with. I think the best player in the
> >> league is, by definition, the Most Valuable Player.
>
> >I know that's what you think, and you're wrong.
>
> No, I'm not It's not my fault if you don't know how to use a
> dictionary.

Sorry. I'll get somebody to teach me about dictionaries.

>
> >> Why should I accept a misinterpretation rather than correcting the
> >> people who make the mistake?
>
> >You're the one doing the misinterpreting. Yoiu seem to believe that
> >the people who invented this award made a mistake, but that can't be;
> >they can invent an award for anything they like.
>
> Which spirits are you communing with? Which "people who invented this
> award?" Where are you getting this information from?

A dictionary under "Abner Doubleday."

> >> >If the Davids want a "best player" award, they should lobby for one.
>
> >> We have one. It's called the MVP award.
>
> >That's where you're wrong.
>
> >> >But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's
> >> >not intended to be.
>
> >> Er, sez who? Where did you derive this "intent" from?

Abner Doubleday. See above.

>
> >Look, if you want a Best Player or a Player of the Year award, then
> >lobby for one. The MVP is not that; it's for the "most valuable."
> >Most valuable to whom? Most valuable to his team. Plain English.

> >That is not the same as "Player of the Year" or "Best Player."

>
> Plain English says that it is the same. The best player is the one

> who adds the most wins to his team, which is, by definition, the most
> valuable to his team.

Not necessarily. The Dodgers picked up Eddie Murray so he could provide
the Clubhouse Leadership. It didn't work out, but if the Dodgers had
won their division, maybe everybody would say it's all because of
Murray's leadership. He might even be the team MVP, although Karros or
somebody might be a better player.

> If (say) Frank Thomas adds 10 wins to Chicago's record, and Tino
> Martinez adds 6 wins to New York's record, how can Tino be more
> valuable to his team? 10 > 6.

I agree with you here, but you don't measure the MVP.

> You're reading far too much into a word choice. The MVP = the Player
> of the Year. Just because they don't call it Player of the Year
> doesn't mean they intended to make a distinction.

Yes they did. If they wanted it measured, they would have established a
criterion and done away with the voting.

[DCRounds]

DCRounds (dcro...@aol.com) wrote:
: No. If Bonds had reversed his April and September hitting, the outcome

: would have been exactly the same. He would not have to have had a great
: September for the Giants to win the division.

From: dan...@Hawaii.Edu (Dane Sei Muramoto)

>Although I think the MVP should go to the player who is MVP of the league
-- not a team -- I must say the above statement is inaccurate. If Bonds,
indeed, had his April and September numbers reversed, it would have led
the Giants to a possibly worse record. After all, didn't the Giants start
the season on fire? In that manner, Bonds' numbers would not have helped
much in April. However, they did help a bunch in September.

Too simplistic. The Giants could have started out 20-10, and a hot Bonds would
have made it 25-5. He might have made the exact same 5 game difference in
September. Possibly, Bonds could have just made the Giants' margin of
victories higher in April, causing no more wins, but the same could be said
for September.

The timing of his hits is important, but certainly not the time of year.

[DCRounds]

From: James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net>

>If the Davids want a "best player" award, they should lobby for one.

But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's not
intended to be.

"Intended to be" is only your own opinion. Nobody really know what is
intended.

[Paul Antonissen]

In article <34317D...@daedal.net>, j...@daedal.net wrote:

>Paul Antonissen wrote:
>
>> James Tuttle wrote:
>> >
>> >Suppose A and B are on the same team, and B is the
>> >better player with better stats. But A is a good player too, and
>> >he's more spirited -- a real Clubhouse Leader who inspires his team.
>> >On the field he's a scrappy guy who goes all out to win. B, on the
>> >other hand, is a workaday player with sort of a laid-back attitude
>> >who inspires nobody.
>>
>> How do you measure this?
>
>You don't have to. If the MVP depended on a measurement, they wouldn't
>have to vote.

Why not?

>> >The team wins their division and everybody agrees that they couldn't
>> >have done it without A, because of all the inspiration he provided.
>> >He made everybody a better player, including B.
>> >
>> >The team probably couldn't have won without B either, but A was the
>> >more valuable.
>>
>> Until it's possible to measure those intangibles (I guess they'd no
>> longer be intangible), I'll take the "laid-back" player whose
>> contributions can be measured with reasonable accuracy.
>
>No measurements. Sportswriters vote, and they do consider the
>intangibles.

Ah well...there you go then.

>Maybe you need a "Best Player" award for being closest to winning the
>triple crown. You can measure that. No voting either.

But what if the player closest to winning the triple crown isn't the best
player?

[Tjames Madison]

James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> wrote:
: Paul Antonissen wrote:

: > James Tuttle wrote:
: > >
: > >Suppose A and B are on the same team, and B is the
: > >better player with better stats. But A is a good player too, and
: > >he's more spirited -- a real Clubhouse Leader who inspires his team.
: > >On the field he's a scrappy guy who goes all out to win. B, on the
: > >other hand, is a workaday player with sort of a laid-back attitude
: > >who inspires nobody.
: >
: > How do you measure this?

: You don't have to. If the MVP depended on a measurement, they wouldn't
: have to vote.

You say this, but you're measuring it by where the team finishes. You
have to measure everything, or you'd just assume everything was exactly
equal, correct?

Either way, sportswriters are going to:

a) place greater relative importance on team's finishing position, or
b) place greater relative importance on player's individual results.

Even if someone's criteria for MVP is "guy who gave me the best
interviews," that's a measurement. What's being discussed is the validity
of the measurement used to arrive at MVP.

: > Until it's possible to measure those intangibles (I guess they'd no

: > longer be intangible), I'll take the "laid-back" player whose
: > contributions can be measured with reasonable accuracy.

: No measurements. Sportswriters vote, and they do consider the
: intangibles.

This is wrong. Why is so much importance placed on 20 wins for a pitcher?
It's a measurement, and it's easy to remember. It's not that
sportswriters don't *want* to measure the contributions of players, but
that their methods in doing so tend to be geared toward the
easy-to-remember and write-about for a vastly disparate audience.

"Big Unit notches 20th win" is a good headline.
"Bonds bumps his OPS to 1.020" is not.

Hence things that are easy to note and write about every day get
remembered come voting time. If three hitters look somewhat similar,
check the standings and see where their teams finished.

How is that not measuring? It's bad methodology, but it's the exact same
thing as checking someone's slugging average.

Intangibles only go so far. Maybe as a tiebreaker, but if he hadn't put
up the numbers he had last year, no amount of heartwarming Snickers bar
stories would have won the MVP for Ken Caminiti.

: Maybe you need a "Best Player" award for being closest to winning the

: triple crown. You can measure that. No voting either.

The MVP award will do fine, thanks. Maybe they should take your approach
a little further and make a "Favorite Player" award, like they do in Teen
Beat and the American Choice Awards. No measuring, just impulses.

--
RoR-Alucard | http://www.pigdog.org
~worship no false kibos~

[Dan Szymborski]

James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> wrote in article
<343182...@daedal.net>...
> David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> >
<snip>.

> >
> > >That's where you're wrong.
> >

> > >> >But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's
> > >> >not intended to be.
> >

> > >> Er, sez who? Where did you derive this "intent" from?
>
> Abner Doubleday. See above.

What the hell does Doubleday have to do with this? The modern MVP award
was founded by a the BBWAA in an unofficial 1929 poll. This first informal
BBWAA poll was awarded to Lew Fonseca, a first baseman with little home run
power, but a hell of a lot of doubles and triples. Fonseca played for
Cleveland, which finished 24 games out of first place.

In 1931, the first official year of the award, it was given to the two best
players in the league (who happened to be on the first place teams)

In 1932, the NL award was given to probably the 2nd-best player in the
league (behind Ott)--Chuck Klein who played on the .500 Phillies. The AL
award was given to the best player in the league, Jimmie Foxx, whose team
finished 13 games back.

In 1933, the NL award was given to the best pitcher in the league, Carl
Hubbell on the 1st place Giants. The AL award was given to the best htiter
in the league, Jimmie Foxx, on a Phillies team that finished 7 games over
500 and 19.5 games out.

The current MVP award wasn't handed down on stone tablets from Sinai, it
was founded by the BBWAA. The "intent" seems to be _clearly_ in favor of
the best player in the league, regardless of team context.

[Paul G. Wenthold]

James Tuttle wrote:

> No measurements. Sportswriters vote, and they do consider the
> intangibles.
>

And this is another place where I have a beef with them. It
doesn't make any sense to consider "intangibles", since,
by definition, you can't know them. If you knew what they
were and that they had a good effect, they would be tangible.
If a player has "intangible effects" on a team, that
means that they have effects that we don't know about.
But the first thing the guy does is turn around and gives the
guy credit for them.

I usually disregard any statements about "intangibles" because
it looks for the most part that they are pretty much added on
as justification after the choice is already made: "I voted for
him for the MVP because he had a lots of RBIs, a high
batting average and...he was a key team leader and a clutch
hitter."

Lastly, has anyone ever noticed that people will dismiss
criticism about RBI as an opportunity stat by saying "well,
given the opportunity he came through and we ought to
give him credit for that" but then will turn around and
drop a guy down on the list because, even though he hit
great, he benefitted from great "protection" in the lineup?

paul

[James Tuttle]

DCRounds wrote:
>
> From: James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net>
>
> >If the Davids want a "best player" award, they should lobby for one.

> But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's not
> intended to be.
>

> "Intended to be" is only your own opinion. Nobody really know what is
> intended.

Ummm ... what's this newsgroup for, if not opinions?

[dlo...@inlink.nospam.com]

On 28 Sep 1997 14:36:06 -0500, chad...@sashimi.wwa.com (James
Weisberg) wrote:

>In article <342de7d2...@news.inlink.com>,
> <dlo...@inlink.nospam.com> wrote:
>>> What sustains it is that the MVP award has historically gone
>>>to an individual on a contending team. The idea being that the
>>>term "most valuable" contains the notion that the "value is
>>>well spent" i.e. the team accomplished something with the
>>>valuable performance of its player. The MVP does not reflect
>>>the "best player".
>>
>>Explain Andre Dawson 1987. Jack Clark deserved that award.
>
> I'm not sure I can. It was an aberration. Maybe no one
>liked Jack Clark. Maybe Dawson hypnotised everyone. Clark
>was clearly a better player that year, which supports the
>claim that MVP does not reflect the "best player". And
>Dawson led the league in HRs and RBIs (the two big
>categories the media loves). But Dawson was the first
>person to win the MVP on a last place team. It's highly
>unlikely that will happen much in the future.
>
The only explaination I've ever heard that makes _any_ sense is that
Ozzie finished third and this effectively split the 'Cardinal' vote.

[Jon Avins]

David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> In <3432DD...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> claimed:

> >> But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's not
> >> intended to be.

> >> "Intended to be" is only your own opinion. Nobody really know what is
> >> intended.

> >Ummm ... what's this newsgroup for, if not opinions?

> Ummm ... facts?

Ummm ... where's Maynard when you need him? You're thinking of either
r.s.b.data or r.s.b.analysis.

> You stated what it was "intended" to be, which is a statement of fact,
> not opinion. The problem was you weren't basing it on facts.

Fine, that's an entirely different and valid objection to his statement.
If you want to read nothing but facts quit cross posting to rsbb; if you
have the desire to swap and argue opinions on baseball, both well and
poorly supported, quit complaining that people have the audacity to post
that which is other than fact.

Jon Avins
GO METS!!!!

[David Marc Nieporent]

In <3432DD...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> claimed:

>DCRounds wrote:
>> From: James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net>

>> >If the Davids want a "best player" award, they should lobby for one.

>> But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's not
>> intended to be.

>> "Intended to be" is only your own opinion. Nobody really know what is
>> intended.

>Ummm ... what's this newsgroup for, if not opinions?

Ummm ... facts?

You didn't merely state what you thought the MVP should be -- that would
have clearly been your opinion, and there would have been no problem.

You stated what it was "intended" to be, which is a statement of fact,
not opinion. The problem was you weren't basing it on facts.

[James Tuttle]

David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>
> James Tuttle claimed:

> >DCRounds wrote:
>
> >> "Intended to be" is only your own opinion. Nobody really know what
> >> is intended.
>
> >Ummm ... what's this newsgroup for, if not opinions?
>
> Ummm ... facts?
>
> You didn't merely state what you thought the MVP should be -- that
> would have clearly been your opinion, and there would have been no
> problem.

Yes I did. I posted it in this thread the other day. I said it should
go to the player who increases team wins the most. Might not be the
best player in the league but is the most valuable.

[DCRounds]

From: James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net>

> >>If the Davids want a "best player" award, they should lobby for one.
>>> But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's not
>>> intended to be.
>

>>> "Intended to be" is only your own opinion. Nobody really know what is
>>> intended.

>Ummm ... what's this newsgroup for, if not opinions?

Facts, or opinions. When you state "intended to be", I don't know what that
means. It sounds like you are stating a fact.

[DCRounds]

From: Jon Avins <jav...@home.now>

>If you want to read nothing but facts quit cross posting to rsbb; if you
have the desire to swap and argue opinions on baseball, both well and
poorly supported, quit complaining that people have the audacity to post
that which is other than fact.

Who put you in charge? As the previous poster, you are stating an opinion as a
fact.

[David Marc Nieporent]

In <343182...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> claimed:

>David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>> James Tuttle wrote:

>> >> Where do you see "to his team?" in the phrase Most Valuable Player?

>> >It's implied. Most valuable to whom? To his team. Who else could
>> >it be? The league president?

>> It could be most valuable to the league as a whole.

>No player strives for the glory of his league. His allegiance is to the
>team.

How do you know? How about the players whose allegiance is to themselves?

>> >> >and that may not be the best player in the league.

>> >> No, *that's* what I disagree with. I think the best player in the
>> >> league is, by definition, the Most Valuable Player.

>> >I know that's what you think, and you're wrong.

>> No, I'm not It's not my fault if you don't know how to use a dictionary.

>Sorry. I'll get somebody to teach me about dictionaries.

Good. Hopefully that will end this thread without me having to invoke
Godwin's Law.

>> >> Why should I accept a misinterpretation rather than correcting the
>> >> people who make the mistake?

>> >You're the one doing the misinterpreting. Yoiu seem to believe that
>> >the people who invented this award made a mistake, but that can't be;
>> >they can invent an award for anything they like.

>> Which spirits are you communing with? Which "people who invented this
>> award?" Where are you getting this information from?

>A dictionary under "Abner Doubleday."

>> >> >If the Davids want a "best player" award, they should lobby for one.

>> >> We have one. It's called the MVP award.

>> >That's where you're wrong.

>> >> >But they should not try to transform the MVP into something it's
>> >> >not intended to be.

>> >> Er, sez who? Where did you derive this "intent" from?

>Abner Doubleday. See above.

Are you being facetious or clueless?

>> >Look, if you want a Best Player or a Player of the Year award, then
>> >lobby for one. The MVP is not that; it's for the "most valuable."
>> >Most valuable to whom? Most valuable to his team. Plain English.
>> >That is not the same as "Player of the Year" or "Best Player."

>> Plain English says that it is the same. The best player is the one
>> who adds the most wins to his team, which is, by definition, the most
>> valuable to his team.

>Not necessarily. The Dodgers picked up Eddie Murray so he could provide
>the Clubhouse Leadership. It didn't work out, but if the Dodgers had
>won their division, maybe everybody would say it's all because of
>Murray's leadership.

Maybe everybody would say it was because of the tooth fairy; that
wouldn't make it true.

>He might even be the team MVP, although Karros or
>somebody might be a better player.

So Eddie Murray would have been responsibel for more wins in his 29 days
on the job than anybody else on the team in 162? Wow.

>> If (say) Frank Thomas adds 10 wins to Chicago's record, and Tino
>> Martinez adds 6 wins to New York's record, how can Tino be more
>> valuable to his team? 10 > 6.

>I agree with you here, but you don't measure the MVP.

What do you do, guess?

>> You're reading far too much into a word choice. The MVP = the Player
>> of the Year. Just because they don't call it Player of the Year
>> doesn't mean they intended to make a distinction.

>Yes they did. If they wanted it measured, they would have established a
>criterion and done away with the voting.

Huh? Who would have?