Sure, but if your criteria is BBREF WAR + playoffs then it's clearly Mookie.Seager is tied with Donaldson and Machado for WAR at 6.6. Cano is at 6.3. The team has won 6 games in a row and is 2 1/2 back of the WC.
It's how they finish the year. Mookie is opsing under .700 for September. If he continues to struggle and Seattle remains hot and sneaks into the playoffs due to the hitting of Cano or Seager, I could see them getting votes. It's how Pedroia won his MVP. Either that or it just goes to Mike Trout if the other MVP candidates continue to not hit.Sure, but if your criteria is BBREF WAR + playoffs then it's clearly Mookie.
It'll be forgotten about by next week, and Hanley's hot streak, fantastic as it is, hasn't inflated his overall numbers enough to get into the conversation.I've got to imagine that Sunday night's defensive performance by Betts is going to have a bigger impact with voters than it will on his metrics. Multiple spectacular catches in a tightly contested national prime time game that basically kills off your hated rivals...don't sportswriters eat that stuff up?
Call me jaded but I feel like the 'intangibles' stuff counts a lot more for NY players.I've got to imagine that Sunday night's defensive performance by Betts is going to have a bigger impact with voters than it will on his metrics. Multiple spectacular catches in a tightly contested national prime time game that basically kills off your hated rivals...don't sportswriters eat that stuff up?
Depending on how early some of these guy cast their votes.It's how they finish the year. Mookie is opsing under .700 for September. If he continues to struggle and Seattle remains hot and sneaks into the playoffs due to the hitting of Cano or Seager, I could see them getting votes. It's how Pedroia won his MVP. Either that or it just goes to Mike Trout if the other MVP candidates continue to not hit.
I'd be really surprised if any Red Sox gets a single higher vote than Betts, though I guess you can't discount the Papi farewell tour. Same goes for Trumbo/Machado. Then again, there are a lot of morons with votes, so who knows.I wonder if Hanley, Papi, Pedey have hurt Betts' chances with voters and if Trumbo has hurt Machado?
Altuve has fallen off in the last month- .200/.238/.389 in the last 28 days.
Trout has raked- .370/.485/.605 in the last 28 days.
A field position?What would it take for Ortiz to have a legitimate MVP shot?
How can you say "head and shoulders above everyone else"? Trout's and Betts' offensive numbers are pretty similar. Toss is Betts' base running and defense this year and a pretty damn good argument can be made for him winning the award, leaving alone the fact that one plays on a 1st place team and the other on a last place team.How can you not vote for Trout? He's been heads and shoulders ahead of everyone else, and his value has come from all facets of the game. He's even stealing bases at a high clip even though it's obvious that he's not as fast as he was when he came up.
I agree that Trout is the better offensive player right now. I just don't agree that he is head and shoulders above Mookie and the obvious MVP choice, all things considered.Trout is a win and a half ahead in fWAR and 1.2 wins ahead in bWAR. Trout's wOBA is even ahead of Ortiz's. He's been mashing the ball and getting on base at a ridiculous clip.
Trout's OPS+ is 174, Betts' is 130, on the basepaths they're pretty even according to the metrics. Mookie is the better defender but I don't think it closes the gap on Trout's huge advantage with the bat.
Which team they play for isn't relevant, IMO, to who has been the better player this year. I would also generally heavily discount defensive metrics as suggested by many sabermetricians, which means Mookie's total value is even lower.
Explain to me how the best player could not be the most valuable.Trout is the best player in baseball. But this is about the "Most Valuable Player", not "best player". Whether that's fair or not, I'm not to judge. And what constitutes "valuable"? Eye of the beholder, isn't it?
Value to a team is not linear. The difference between 75 and 80 wins is much smaller than the difference between 87 and 92, especially if the latter causes the team to make, instead of miss, the playoffs. So it's not that the player on the 80 win team isn't valuable, it's that the 5 wins he generates make less of a difference to that team than the 5 wins from the player on the 92 win team.Explain to me how the best player could not be the most valuable.
Bad teams draw value from players.
It's an individual award. This player provided five wins in each instance. The rest has to do with the roster his FO surrounded him with.Value to a team is not linear. The difference between 75 and 80 wins is much smaller than the difference between 87 and 92, especially if the latter causes the team to make, instead of miss, the playoffs. So it's not that the player on the 80 win team isn't valuable, it's that the 5 wins he generates make less of a difference to that team than the 5 wins from the player on the 92 win team.
Thank you.Explain to me how the best player could not be the most valuable.
Bad teams draw value from players.
Flip it around. A player on a worse team, a team generating less wins per roster spot, is actually more valuable to each team's win than a player on a more talented roster which is drawing the components that lead to its wins from positive contributions spread out across more of its roster.Value to a team is not linear. The difference between 75 and 80 wins is much smaller than the difference between 87 and 92, especially if the latter causes the team to make, instead of miss, the playoffs. So it's not that the player on the 80 win team isn't valuable, it's that the 5 wins he generates make less of a difference to that team than the 5 wins from the player on the 92 win team.
How does this apply to players who have played exceptionally on good teams in prior seasons, but are currently playing exceptionally for a bad team?I always thought it tied into beliefs about a player being clutch. The good player on the good team has proven he can be good in important moments. The good player on the bad team isn't playing under the same pressure.
I didn't say I believed it. It just appeared to me to be part of the logic. Hitting .330 with ten homers down the stretch in a pennant race is taken to show more ability or clutchiness than doing the same without any pressure.How does this apply to players who have played exceptionally on good teams in prior seasons, but are currently playing exceptionally for a bad team?
It's still a relevant question whether you believe it or not. I can't imagine this is a prevalent mindset since it requires a willingness to believe that a player who is great and an MVP one season isn't "clutch enough" or "good enough when it matters" to be worthy of consideration the next simply because the team around them is far less competitive. I think the mindset is more that the contributions just matter more when the team is in contention because the team isn't "wasting" the performance by not having a shot to go to the playoffs. I disagree with that mindset, but that seems more likely than a belief that one player is more clutch or whatever than another.I didn't say I believed it. It just appeared to me to be part of the logic. Hitting .330 with ten homers down the stretch in a pennant race is taken to show more ability or clutchiness than doing the same without any pressure.
Aren't these the same guys who have dogged great players like Ted Williams for not being good in the playoffs? In the old guard, there very much seemed to be a strain of this guy can't hit when it counts.It's still a relevant question whether you believe it or not. I can't imagine this is a prevalent mindset since it requires a willingness to believe that a player who is great and an MVP one season isn't "clutch enough" or "good enough when it matters" to be worthy of consideration the next simply because the team around them is far less competitive. I think the mindset is more that the contributions just matter more when the team is in contention because the team isn't "wasting" the performance by not having a shot to go to the playoffs. I disagree with that mindset, but that seems more likely than a belief that one player is more clutch or whatever than another.
I know, silly. But a lot of them are of that age when there was a sense that some players rose to the occasion. I can't help but think that plays a part of it. In fact, I remember reading that argument in an old Globe or SI article I'll try to find.I'm guessing that most of the people voting when Ted Williams was playing probably aren't voting today.
I love this argument, as it usually indicates the crafter has never played for a shitty team where the pressure to "just win one" is suffocating.The good player on the good team has proven he can be good in important moments. The good player on the bad team isn't playing under the same pressure.
Marciano playing for a loser? I think not!I love this argument, as it usually indicates the crafter has never played for a shitty team where the pressure to "just win one" is suffocating.
I mean, it's not like YOU SUCK has never been used to motivate anyone, anywhere - nor is fear of being labeled a "loser" much of a thing at all.
Marciano never lost nothin! You come down here to Brockton and say that to my face, tough guy!Marciano playing for a loser? I think not!
You see these sorts of arguments all the time. I find it very surprising that people here are finding it surprising that a large number of sports writers think this way. It's changing, sure, but we didn't all just suddenly forget everything we read on Fire Joe Morgan, right? Or that we have a dedicated Cafardo thread?I'm not championing the argument. Just noting I've seen it as an undercurrent for why sports writers like to vote for MVP candidates from winning teams.
Apologies ahead of time if this is tongue and cheek. They know he's one of the best players in baseball regardless of whether he wins the award. MVP awards won't trump bottom line market value, and nor should they since the award is at the mercy of voters who don't watch him play day to day. It won't factor into arbitration numbers either. Though, I guess it's possible for MVP incentives to factor in on a small monetary level.Besides, isn't it in the Sox best interest (and thus ours) for Betts NOT to win the MVP from a negotiating POV on a long-term deal?
Value to a team is not linear. The difference between 75 and 80 wins is much smaller than the difference between 87 and 92, especially if the latter causes the team to make, instead of miss, the playoffs. So it's not that the player on the 80 win team isn't valuable, it's that the 5 wins he generates make less of a difference to that team than the 5 wins from the player on the 92 win team.
Value in terms of WAR is linear, but value in terms of "World Series Win Probability Added" is non-linear. If Mike Trout and Mookie Betts both go two for five with a home run and a double, they've added the same WAR, but Mookie increases the chance the Sox win the world series by, let's say, 0.2% whereas Trout adds exactly 0.00% (since the Angels have been eliminated).It's an individual award. This player provided five wins in each instance. The rest has to do with the roster his FO surrounded him with.
I get where your coming from, but my counter would be this if either Papi or Betts were hurt before opening day this year:I think the idea of the MVP is to honor the player thats is most valuable to his team, potentially in the litterary sense of that term. In a year like Ortiz is having, I think its actually highly appropriate to step back from the quantitative and into the narrative of baseball.
I would not be suprised if a fair amount of baseball writers agree.