http://economics.about.com
AL: Bill Mueller

Where would the Red Sox be without him?

Mike

Mike,

In the AL East.

Craig

This is my provisional top 10 for AL MVP:

1. Alex Rodriguez
2. Jorge Posada
3. Bret Boone
4. Roy Halladay
5. Carlos Delgado
6. Nomar Garciaparra
7. Vernon Wells
8. Tim Hudson
9. Manny Ramirez
10. Miguel Tejada

Any and all comments would be appreciated.

http://economics.about.com
In the AL East.

Shows what you know. Mueller foiled a plan by Selig to relocate the Red Sox to Yakima, Washington. Selig's only comment was "The Red Sox cannot compete without a publicly financed stadium". Then Mueller reunited Van Halen and Sammy Hagar.

Don't you read the Toronto Sun?

Mike

AL MVP, still all up in the air with one week left

1. Alex Rodriguez
2. Bret Boone
3. Tim Hudson
4. Esteban Loaiza
5. Carlos Delgado
6. Nomar Garciaparra
7. Jorge Posada
8. Roy Halladay
9. Miguel Tejada
10. Vernon Wells

Robert,

I have no idea whether Tim Hudson was more valuable than Nomar Garciaparra or not, but I do know that you do have the top 3 candidates named. Alex Rodriguez is clearly the top choice. Posada vs. Boone is a tougher call. Posada has supplied better O, but not as good D. I don't know how much weight to attach to the difference between an average defensive catcher and an above average second baseman. Somehow I doubt that it is equivalent to 50 points of OBP.

http://economics.about.com
Where's the love for Mueller? How has Tejada been more valuable than Mueller?

Cheers,

Mike

While we're on the topic of MVPs, Alexis Rios was named MVP of the Eastern League, according to BA.

NL MVP

1. Barry Bonds
2. Albert Pujols
3. Javy Lopez
4. Gary Sheffield
5. Todd Helton
6. Edgar Renteria
7. Jason Schmidt
8. Bobby Abreu
9. Marcus Giles
10. Mark Loretta

"Where's the love for Mueller? How has Tejada been more valuable than Mueller?"

Tejada has many more PA, has significantly more defensive value, and has a very large edge in park

http://economics.about.com
Tejada has many more PA, has significantly more defensive value, and has a very large edge in park

Tejada is 276/334/474 this year and Mueller is 329/401/548. Plus Mueller is the best player at his position and Tejada isn't (in the AL, that is).

Let's phrase this a different way: How much would Mueller have to hit to surpass Tejada, given the three drawbacks you mention?

Mike

Craig,

Putting Loaiza that high might be considered a crime in some jurisdictions. Mr. Easy-Schedule-I-Can't-Beat-the-Twins doesn't deserve to be in that company.

I don't know. I haven't done any number crunching WRT the AL MVP.

I'm a big Bill Mueller fan, but to back up Robert, check out Tejada and Mueller's away stats. Pretty darn comparable. Tejada is a fine defensive shortstop- a Gold Glove contender in a weak field actually, whereas Mueller is an average defensive third baseman.

Mueller is between Soriano and Tejada in value. As long as we realize that he's a better player than Alfonso, we're showing him plenty of love.

Tejada is the shortstop on the best defensive team in baseball - I do give him credit for that even though his individual defensive numbers aren't convincingly great. I do think he plays good defense. Mueller's defense is at best indifferent. He is at best a typical member of a poor defensive team. And Tejada is a shortstop and Mueller a third baseman.

Tejada plays every inning of every game. Mueller does not... far from it.

Mueller has scored 82 runs and driven in 82 in the middle of the bet offense in baseball. Tejada has scored 95 and driven in 102. He is 10-0 in stolen bases... Mueller is 1-4.

Miguel Tejada after the break (i.e. in the stretch drive)... .331/.396/.559 and his team is hot again in that time, coming from behind.

There are a bunch of little, tiny advantages for Tejada that add up for me. Mueller is another lefty hitter who sets up well for Fenway, and while that certainly has value, and he has been a very good player batting righty and on the road, I am disinclined to move him up in my estimation where much of his superlativeness as an offensive player has come from a park effect he can exploit.

Robert,

Eight wins by two runs or less. He's plummeting to earth (and from the top spot) in September... but he has won a ton of close games all year.

The easy schedule is a problem and he might not deserve to rank that high as a result.

How much would Mueller have to hit to surpass Tejada, given the three drawbacks you mention?

I don't know... more than he has. If he had played a full season at third, or if he'd hit turned some doubles into home runs, he'd be more valuable than Tejada. Didn't, hasn't, isn't.

"Eight wins by two runs or less."

That isn't all that impressive. He wasn't finishing most of those games, was he? He had to have decent bullpen support to achieve that and the Sox do have Marte and Gordon down there.

Here's how the division rivals' offenses rate: Tigers - horrible; Inidans - bad; Royals below average (park illusion); Twins - average or slightly below.

At this point I don't think I'd rate him in the top 20 in ALMVP.

That isn't all that impressive.

It is when you compare him to the other candidates.

http://economics.about.com
Mueller has scored 82 runs and driven in 82 in the middle of the bet offense in baseball.

Mueller usually hits 7th or 8th, which is a significant part of the reason why he's behind in PAs.

My reasoning is this: Mueller is among the league leaders in AVG, OBP, SLG, and OPS. Tejada isn't. Admittedly Mueller isn't great defensively but while Tejada is a good defensive shortstop, he's not nearly as good as ARod. It's also a heck of a lot easier to find a good shortstop than a good third baseman. The fourth best shortstop in the league is Jeter. Who is the fourth best third baseman in the AL?

Mueller took over the third base job which allowed the Red Sox to solidify their bullpen and (probably) make the playoffs. I suppose it depends on how you define "value", but to me there's a great deal of value in that.

He's more valuable than ARod because Texas could still finish in last without him. If Texas gave away ARod for free (and got someone to take that contract) and used the $20+ million to fix a lot of the holes in the roster, the Rangers wouldn't probably be any worse off.

I guess it all depends if you consider gross value or net value. I'm more inclined to look at the latter.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike M, Mueller is a better defensive third baseman than Eric Chavez? On what theory or using what metric do you arrive at that?

As for the Esteban Loaiza for MVP nominee campaign, one has to concede reluctantly that the numbers are there. While he has posted big numbers in six starts against the Tigers, he allowed 3 earned runs total in starts against the Yankees, Red Sox and Jays. His road record is significantly better than his home record.

Here in TO, we do have a bias against Esteban because of his performance here. His late-season collapse in the heat of a pennant race doesn't add to our impression of him.

Mike M, Mueller is a better defensive third baseman than Eric Chavez? On what theory or using what metric do you arrive at that?

As for the Esteban Loaiza for MVP nominee campaign, one has to concede reluctantly that the numbers are there. While he has posted big numbers in six starts against the Tigers, he allowed 3 earned runs total in starts against the Yankees, Red Sox and Jays. His road record is significantly better than his home record.

Here in TO, we do have a bias against Esteban because of his performance here. His late-season collapse in the heat of a pennant race doesn't add to our impression of him.

Mueller usually hits 7th or 8th, which is a significant part of the reason why he's behind in PAs.

It's also a reason he has less value - he gets to bat less often with men on base and so faces fewer high-leverage situations.

http://economics.about.com
Mike M, Mueller is a better defensive third baseman than Eric Chavez? On what theory or using what metric do you arrive at that?

He's not. Where did you get that idea? :)

It's also a reason he has less value - he gets to bat less often with men on base and so faces fewer high-leverage situations.

This is true. Of course, he doesn't make nearly as many outs in high-leverage situations.

Would you rather have Mueller or Tejada up in one of those situations? That is, if Bonds wasn't available.

Cheers,

Mike

I make no apologies for my Blue Jays bias, nor can I defend my selections with irrefutable evidence. They are just the guys I believe had the best years.

AL:

1. Alex Rodriguez
2. Bret Boone
3. Nomar Garciaparra
4. Roy Halladay
5. Vernon Wells
6. Carlos Delgado
7. Jorge Posada
8. Tim Hudson
9. Manny Ramirez
10. Johan Santana

NL:

1. Barry Bonds
2. Albert Pujols
3. Javy Lopez
4. Gary Sheffield
5. Todd Helton
6. Eric Gagne
7. Jim Thome
8. Edgar Renteria
9. Jason Schmidt
10. Russ Ortiz

Loaiza's starts, by opponent:

Detroit 6, Minnesota 5, Kansas City 5, Cleveland 1

Tampa Bay 2, Baltimore 2, Toronto, Boston, Yankees 1
Oakland 2, Seattle, Texas, Anaheim 1

Arizona, Los Angeles, San Diego 1

Of his interleague starts, 2 of 3 were against the two worst offensive teams in the NL. He had more starts against the weak offenses in the AL East than against the good ones.

Loaiza is 8-3 in decisions won/lost by 2 runs or less. Halladay is 5 and 1. Big deal.

Any "Loaiza pitched in a pennant race" argument has to surely be diluted by the fact that, despite playing nineteen games against the Tigers, his club will finish with a worse record than Roy Halladay's.

My top 10s are very similar to those of Coach.

AL
1. Alex Rodriguez
2. Nomar Garciaparra
3. Vernon Wells
4. Bret Boone
5. Jorge Posada
6. Carlos Delgado
7. Roy Halladay
8. Tim Hudson
9. Carlos Beltran
10. Manny Ramirez

NL
1. Barry Bonds
2. Albert Pujols
3. Javy Lopez
4. Gary Sheffield
5. Todd Helton
6. Eric Gagne
7. Jason Schmidt
8. Edgar Renteria
9. Jim Thome
10. Andruw Jones

NL MVP:

1. Albert Pujols
2. Barry Bonds
3. Javy Lopez
4. Gary Sheffield
5. Todd Helton
6. Jason Schmidt
7. Eric Gagne
8. Edgar Renteria
9. Andruw Jones
10. Mark Prior

I've crunched some numbers on the #1/#2 spots. Then I looked at Albert's perfornce in RISP - absolutely phenomenal. Bonds gets walks in those situations and so his mediocre teammates have to get those runs home. The difference in playing time continues to increase in Pujols' favour, as Bonds rested again in a day game after a night game.

http://economics.about.com
My AL picks. Flame on.

AL

1. Bill Mueller
2. Ichiro Suzuki
3. Vernon Wells
4. Alex Rodriguez (Despite how hard I try, I can't overlook those monster numbers)
5. Jorge Posada
6. Tim Hudson
7. Roy Halladay
8. Esteban Loaiza
9. Manny Ramirez
10. Jason Giambi

I tend to take a broader look at "value" which includes how a player influenced the makeup of a team, the effect the player has on attendance, and impact on a pennant race. I'll be the first to admit the list is completely subjective: no metrics were used. The criteria for MVP is pretty subjective, so I don't have a problem with people saying MVP = Best Stats. It's just not for me, though.

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Ooops.. Delgado was supposed to be 5th. I don't know how he got left out. So my list is a top 11. :)

Also I had trouble picking between Ramirez/Giambi/Garciaparra, as you could make a great argument for any of them.

Mike

Mike, I love your list. I think the best reason for taking a vote is to let a thousand flowers bloom, and let a hundred schools of thought contend.

But that's me. Most people prefer to yell and scream.

http://economics.about.com
Mike, I love your list. I think the best reason for taking a vote is to let a thousand flowers bloom, and let a hundred schools of thought contend.

Thanks. I thought putting Ichiro second would be classified as "interesting". If you look at all the fans Ichiro puts in the seats, all the extra revenue he brings in from fans living in Japan, the opportunities he brings the Mariners to bring in more great Japanese talent, plus his valuable and exciting on the field play, I think you have to rank him highly.

In the same vein, I'd put Matsui in the top 15, and Dontrelle Willis in the top 10 for NL MVP.

Cheers,

Mike

The fourth best shortstop in the league is Jeter

Is he, clearly?

Tejada - .276/.334/.474 (616 ABs)
Jeter - .325/.395/.455 (459 ABs)

Jeter's injury obviously limits his value for the year, but put it this way -- subtracting Jeter's stats from Tejada, you get (roughly) a guy who hits .133/.155/.528 over 150 ABs. Even factoring in ballpark effects (though it seems Yankee stadium is acting as a pitchers' park this year), wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that Jeter has had more offensive value than Tejada this year?

Sure, Tejada's defensive edge could be argued to be significant, and he has been leading Oakland's playoff charge again, but the Yankees division lead looked precarious for a little while, and Jeter hasn't exactly disappeared himself -- .333/.402/.461 post-ASB, .345/.429/.418 in Sept.

I don't think I'd suggest that Jeter has been better (or "more valuable") than Tejada, but I don't think the difference is really that big. Are the people putting Tejada on their ballots even considering Jeter? Has it gotten to the point where Derek Jeter is so over-rated he's actually become under-rated?

And, what about Soriano?

Boone - .290/.359/.527, 16/3 SB/CS
Soriano - .291/.337/.516, 34/8 SB/CS

Boone has obviously been better, but Soriano has been (by far) the second-best 2B in the AL, offensively. Who's third -- Mike Young (.309/.343/.452) or Todd Walker (.277/.324/.409)? If you want to make the scarcity argument for Mueller at 3B, I think you have a better one for Soriano at 2B.

From Nelson Lu's RC/25 report:
RC/25 PRC/25 Value
Boone 6.74 6.99 63.1
Soriano 5.99 6.20 54.8
Young 5.66 5.22 34.3
Roberts 4.82 5.04 22.5
Walker 5.02 4.86 25.5
AVE 4.78
REPL 3.28

Mueller 7.86 7.60 59.1
Chavez 6.13 6.50 53.5
Blalock 6.79 6.26 45.2
Koskie 6.43 6.19 38.7
Glaus 5.53 5.81 24.9
AVE 4.73
REPL 3.24

(One thing that stands out, looking at the 2Bmen, is that it seems to be a much deeper position in the NL than in the AL. I'm not sure if we should compare Boone and Mueller to their MLB peers, or just their AL peers. If it's the latter, Boone and Soriano's "Value" totals would get significant boosts, as the "average" AL 2B is a pretty bad hitter)

George,
Alfonso Soriano is fine hitting second baseman (although better cast as a 5 or 6 hitter than a leadoff hitter). However, his defence is right there with Luis Rivas and Todd Walker for the worst in the league. Actually, now that Roberto Alomar is in the league, he joins this sorry group. Soriano's defence has been this way for years. He has poor range, and combines with Jeter to form the worst DP combination in the majors.

If the Yankees didn't have gobs of money to spend on pitchers, they would have long since realized that they have a defensive sinkhole at second base and would have moved Soriano to the outfield.

Sorry Robert, but you'll have to persuade me that Pujols had a better season than Bonds. In neutral situations (none on/none out), they get on base about the same and Bonds has a slugging percentage 200 points higher. With runners on, Bonds gets walked (11 plate appearances with runners on 2nd and 3rd, 10 walks); Pujols is pitched to most of the time, as there is not that much of a difference between him and Jim Edmonds.

Yes, Pujols gets more playing time. But, should the best offensive player on a good offensive team that fails to make the playoffs be considered more valuable than a clearly better offensive player on a poor offensive team that wins its division handily?

It's not quite as hard to make this argument as the Ichiro for MVP argument, but it still seems uphill to me. Good luck.

For the moment I've said all I'm going to on Bonds v Pujols. In addition to the analysis I posted on this site, there was a lengthy thread on the subject at Baseball Primer recently in which I took part.

Without considering RISP, the two are more or less tied in value, because Pujols playing time offsets Bonds' more efficient performance. The parks are actually a slight edge for Pujols this year.

Sorry Robert, but you'll have to persuade me that Pujols had a better season than Bonds

But remember, the question is which player had more value, not which player had a better season. If Pujols is adding more value than Bonds, I think it's a valid point to say that it doesn't matter that he's only doing it because Bonds won't be pitched to.

The real advantage of Pujols in the MVP race is the extra time he has spent in the lineup. It's hard for Bonds to make up that deficit. I think he has - and more - not everyone agrees.

My two cents worth (I'm not sure it's worth even that) on the AL MVP:

1. Arod
2. Posada
3. Nomar
4. Boone
5. Delgado
6. Tejada
7. Ramirez
8. Wells
9. Beltran
10.Halladay

I almost put Posada at number 1. I just think that kink of offensive production from a catcher is incredibly valuable, but the marginal defense and the lack of playing time (natural for a catcher) couldn't justify no.1. Boone's late season slide has really hurt his chances, but his park adjusted numbers are still excellent and his defense is fantastic. I'm not sure what the defensive metrics say, but out here on the west coast I have seen 60-70 Mariners games and from a subjective standpoint his defense has been incredible.

My AL Top 10

1. Bret Boone
2. Carlos Delgado
3. Nomar Garciaparra
4. Jorge Posada
5. Alex Rodriguez
6. Manny Ramirez
7. Roy Halladay
8. Jason Giambi
9. Carlos Beltran
10. Vernon Wells

My NL Top 3

1. Barry Bonds
2. Albert Pujols
3. Gary Sheffield

The gap between here and the rest of the field is enormous.

AL:

1. Bret Boone
2. Jorge Posada
3. Alex Rodriguez
4. Tim Hudson
5. Manny Ramriez
6. Carlos Delgado
7. Nomar Garciappara
8. Alfonso Soriano
9. Miguel Tejada
10. Vernon Wells

NL:

1. Barry Bonds
2. Albert Pujols
3. Javy Lopez

I will echo Rusty's sentiments here, substituting Javy for Sheffield. The gap really is quite large even between Pujols and Lopez, and then widens further after Lopez.

Let's look at the value of production.

Homeruns:

Bonds: 44 homeruns, 33 solo, 13 runners plated (other than Bonds)
Pujols: 43 homeruns, 22 solo, 28 runners plated (other than Pujols)

Doubles/Triples:

Bonds: 22, with men on 12 (55%); Pujols: 50, with men on 26 (52%)

Singles:

Bonds 61, with men on 28 (46%); Pujols: 114, with men on 50 (44%)

When is a walk most valuable relative to other offensive production? When leading off an inning and when first base is occupied.

Bonds: 147 walks, 73 in valuable situations (49.7%)
Pujols: 76 walks, 27 in valuable situations (35.5%)

Bonds' walks have been significantly more valuable, but Pujols has a huge edge in homerun value. The other hits are about even, except that Pujols gets many more of them.

My problem with Bonds' candidacy, other than playing time, is that most of his valuable production is the walks and those are simply not leading to a lot of extra runs for the Giants. There is a lot of value in not making outs, but this value is basically spread out to all the Giants hitters. I fully account for the secondary value of avoiding outs in the analysis I refered to above.

Thanks, Robert. I understand your reasoning. Can't say that I agree, but what fun would that be?

So far on this thread it's 5-1 for Bonds over Pujols as NL MVP. I invite someone from the Bonds side to present a detailed analysis of why they think Bonds has been more valuable.

My challenge is this:

If Bonds is the MVP, it's not for his defence, but for the runs he helps create for the Giants. Give me your estimate for how many runs Bonds has created for the Giants this year.

Robert,

I'll use Equivalent Runs because they are to hand. Bonds has 144.3 Equivalent Runs in 529 PA while using 246 outs. Pujols has 147.6 Equivalent Runs in 656 PA while using 364 outs.

I think that needs to be adjusted somewhat in Pujols' favor, perhaps, because the 2003 smoothed-out park factors may not quite be as harshly pro-Bonds as the 2002 park facotrs used to calculate this data are. I do not like to use one-year PFs, however.

It is not Bonds's fault that the Giants are not best taking advantage of his unique trait... the ability to get on base better than any mortal in history. He has value, and is adding value, that is not necessarily being exploited. However, his "strength of offense" is unmistakeable in my view. I understand someone wanting to take points off for the fact that he isn't getting driven in (and he's not) but I do not want to do so.

Bonds also gets considerable support from me on point number 3... "general character, disposition, loyalty, and effort". I think this season has been a tremendous effort from him. I also like to add credit in circumstances where a player's efforts have been crucial to a pennant-winning team.

You want to get into an argument with me (and everyone else), and I'm not going to rise to your bait. I am quite content to assert that I think that Bonds is the MVP, while recognizing that someone else may have it differently... even to say that Pujols *may* actually have more value, though I don't see it that way.

AL:
Alex Rodriguez
Jorge Posada
Bret Boone
Nomar Garciaparra
Tim Hudson
Carlos Delgado
Manny Ramirez
Pedro Martinez
Bill Mueller
Vernon Wells

NL:
Barry Bonds
Albert Pujols
Javy Lopez
Gary Sheffield
Todd Helton
Jim Thome
Edgar Renteria
Jason Schmidt
Mark Prior
Marcus Giles

Craig,

I think the analysis I presented is considerably more sophisticated than Equivalent Runs. Why not use my analysis as a starting point?

I don't doubt that you believe that Bonds' character is the deciding factor. I'm not saying this applies to you, but it's quite common to use character issues inconsistently - to stake out a positiion and then use character to help justify it. It would seem to me that if you thought character were so important, you might not want to rank Esteban Loaiza so high.

"E.g. I know A-Rod has better numbers this year (in 2002) but Tejada is the heart and soul of the Athletics and A-Rod plays on a loser."

I'd rather focus on the tangible stuff. It's hard for me to see how Bonds' character has translated into more wins for the Giants this year.

BTW 6-1 for Bonds now.

http://economics.about.com
I'd vote for Bonds over Pujols. So I guess it's 7-1.

Most Valuable Player doesn't necessarily equal Player Whose Performance Has Translated into the most wins. Value is a somewhat more nebulous concept and I have a feeling we all define it differently.

Mike

Actually, Bonds doesn't win it on character for me... but it's enough that I think it can balance the advantage of Pujols on point 2. So I think Bonds actually wins on offensive production, your condescending put-down of my motives notwithstanding.

What are you driving at? Do you just want me to admit that you're the smarter guy and your analysis is so much more intelligent and sophisticated than mine? Fine, I have no problem with that. In fact, as you know, I heartily support the call for all to bow before the mighty Robert. You do some *terrific* analysis.

You threw out a ridiculous "challenge" to "Give me your estimate for how many runs Bonds has created for the Giants this year." I turned that around and gave a straightforward answer, using a metric that is perfectly reasonable... if perhaps not ideal.

Your analysis above concluded that "My problem with Bonds' candidacy, other than playing time, is that most of his valuable production is the walks and those are simply not leading to a lot of extra runs for the Giants."

The core of my argument is that the walks still have value and that the fact that the Giants are not supplementing those walks with enough additional value to create runs from them is no fault of Barry Bonds. I am sorry that we are talking past each other... but we are.

AL MVP
1. Alex Rodriguez
2. Bret Boone
3. Carlos Delgado
4. Manny Ramirez
5. Jorge Posada
6. Jason Giambi
7. Normar Garciaparra
8. Vernon Wells
9. Miguel Tejada
10. Roy Halladay

NL MVP

1. Sorry about your dad, Barry, but... Pujols! Pujols! Pujols!
2. Barry
3. Gary
4. Javy
5. Marcus
6. Thome
7. Bobby Abreu
8. Ivan Rodriguez
9. Todd Helton
10. Eric Gagne

To complete the Bonds' argument, the rest of the Giants are worse than the Cardinals at turning Bonds production into runs and better at turning his production into wins. If we cannot give Bonds credit for the abilities of the Giants' bullpen, we cannot take away credit from him for the failures of their 4, 5 and 6 hitters.

"E.g. I know A-Rod has better numbers this year (in 2002) but Tejada is the heart and soul of the Athletics and A-Rod plays on a loser."

Speaking of which, ESPN has posted Jayson Stark's latest column, in which he provides the definitive argument for determining the MVP.

OK, it's an article about ARod, and contains the following salient tidbit:

He's actually having his worst season as a Ranger.

No need to guess his stance on ARod for MVP...

http://economics.about.com
Speaking of which, ESPN has posted Jayson Stark's latest column, in which he provides the definitive argument for determining the MVP.

I really like what Stark says here:

"This isn't the Most Picturesque Numbers Award. This isn't the Most Outstanding Player Award. This isn't even the Best Player Who Has Gotten Jobbed Out of an MVP in the Past Award."

I couldn't agree with him more.

To me value either means one of two things: Greatest (positive) discrepency between Revenue and Cost, or Greatest ROI (in percentage terms). Again, everyone sees it differently.

Cheers,

Mike

AL MVP
1)A-Rod
2)Posada
3)Nomar
4)Halladay
5)Boone
6)Hudson
7)Ramirez
8)Delgado
9)Tejada
10)Wells

NL MVP
1)Bonds
2)Pujols
3)Javy
4)Gagne
5)Sheffield

Least Valuable player: The player who in the mind of the voter(s) has been the least valuable in relation to the amount of money he is paid and respect he recieves.

AL LVP
1) Soriano- he's good, yet not godly
2) Jeter- 17 million
3) Torii Hunter- again, he's good, but his OPS is .761 ...
4) Andy Pettitte- 19 wins, but an era around 4.30
5) Cory Lidle- He's even worse than his numbers might indicate

Any other LVP rankings?

Stark also notes former Jay Shannon Stewart as a legitimate MVP candidate. No, really.

"Since he arrived in Minnesota, all the Twins have done is go 44-20, the best record in baseball. And that's no accident. Shannon Stewart changed this lineup and changed this team. It's that simple. Since the day he got to Minnesota, he leads all AL leadoff men in batting average (.324) and on-base percentage (.390). And unlike A-Rod's big numbers since the break, those stats have had a direct impact on the race and his team's season."

Stewart has played very well, but come on. Minnesota had a 4.74 ERA at the All-Star Break. Since then, it's 3.89. If Stewart is responsible for the Twins' allowing almost one fewer run per game, I guess he does deserve the MVP.

Scott, it's that killer defense he plays in right field.

What I'm driving at is that when I present an anaysis that seeks to answer the question: How many runs did Bonds/Pujols create for their teams? How many more than replacement level is that? people do not present evidence that undermines my analysis, nor do they present extra information which can more accurately reflect run creation.

For the most part they say: A ha, interesting, but I'm still going with Bonds as more valuable.

"The core of my argument is that the walks still have value and that the fact that the Giants are not supplementing those walks with enough additional value to create runs from them is no fault of Barry Bonds."

Fault has nothing to do with it. It's also not Barry's fault that his father was ill and then died and he had to miss 10+ games because of it. Nevertheless, those missed games affect the number of games the Giants have won.

The base runs formula gives a lot of credit for those walks, and my method fully accounts for the number of outs Bonds saves by getting on base so often. The last time I calculated it, Pujols came out between 1 and 5 runs more valuable than Bonds, depending on where you set the replacement level. But that's assuming that every event from every batter in the order has a standard value. Looking closely at the performance in various men-on-base situations leads me to believe that the method undervalues Pujols' production'.

Mike Green wrote: "To complete the Bonds' argument, the rest of the Giants are worse than the Cardinals at turning Bonds production into runs and better at turning his production into wins. If we cannot give Bonds credit for the abilities of the Giants' bullpen, we cannot take away credit from him for the failures of their 4, 5 and 6 hitters.

Mike, I think these things are not the same. Excepting solo homeruns, runs are scored by the combined efforts of 9+ batters. The Giants bullpen operates in complete independence of Barry Bonds's offensive abilities.

I don't see how we can avoid the conclusion that the performance of teammates affects how valuable Bonds/Pujols' offensive contributions are.

What I was trying to do is open up a more or less objective debate about the issue, to try to avoid this thread becoming a popularity contest. No one is obliged to participate in that debate, however.

http://economics.about.com
I don't see how we can avoid the conclusion that the performance of teammates affects how valuable Bonds/Pujols' offensive contributions are.

If that's the case, why just not use (R+RBI)/2 as your metric?

Mike

I seem to be the only other person to agree that Pujols is more valuable than Barry this year. Pujols is a good bet to finish the year with about 41 or 42 WS, the highest non-Barry total of WS at least since '93 (when Barry had 47 WS). (Sosa had 42 WS in '01, and McGwire in '98 and Bagwell in '96 both had 41 WS. Barry, btw, had 49 WS last year, and 54 WS in '01. He's currently sitting at 38 WS this year.)

Bonds is phenomenal, but 151 (and counting) games of Pujols is more valuable than 124 games of Barry.

Mike,

You could very well do that, except that you'd have to include an opportunities denominator. PA would serve as a guide, but we know that it's harder to get an RBI when there's no one on base or when you're walked.

It might work like this:

Runs/PA + RBI/opportunity + moving runners/opportunity + outs saved/consumed

There're lots of unknowns there, but if we did get all the necessary info, we'd probably come up with something like the Base Runs + Outs Saved method, with supplemental analysis of performance in various base-out situations considered.

I think it's easy to lose track of how good Pujols has been this year day in and day out given how much we've ground accustomed to being blown-away by Bonds' superhuman rate stats over the past three years.

Is it a Blue Jays bias that the Batters Box Crew doesn't seem to have a problem making the same distinction when it comes to AL Cy Young in the case of Halladay v. Martinez?

http://economics.about.com
You could very well do that, except that you'd have to include an opportunities denominator.

Why would you divide by opportunities? (I'm being serious here) If a guy only has a handful of RBI opportunities, then by definition he's not particularly valuable. Atleast that's what you seemed to be implying in the case of Mueller.

Mike

I don't see how we can avoid the conclusion that the performance of teammates affects how valuable Bonds/Pujols' offensive contributions are.

I see exactly the point you are trying to make.

And I still will not use such a criterion to measure the strength of a player's offense. Sorry. Your point of view is not more "objective" simply because you insist on placing the players' contributions in the actual team context in which they take place while I insist on taking them out of that context. Both examine the player's contribution perfectly objectively.

The element of analysis you are pointing at and claiming is a weakness (the de-contextualized approach to interpreting stats with something like EqR), I am claiming is actually a strength. Or rather, captures more closely what I think of as "value".

And yes, this argument is making me reconsider my vote... but in the AL MVP. I've been giving Loaiza too muich credit for pitchig in close games... something that really isn't up to him.

Mike...

Opportunities are important, because if in key situations, the good things you do count for more than they otherwise would, the bad things you do cost the team more than they otherwise would.

If two guys have the same RBI/opps, then the guy with more opps is more valuable (assuming he's above replacement level RBI/opps) because he's adding more runs in comparison to a replacement player. But the opps are still important.

http://economics.about.com
If two guys have the same RBI/opps, then the guy with more opps is more valuable (assuming he's above replacement level RBI/opps) because he's adding more runs in comparison to a replacement player. But the opps are still important.

So then you'd need a statistic like:

(RBI / opps) * opps



Actually, how would you formulate it?

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
I had an "evil grin" after my silly equation, but it seems to have been nuked by the software. Sigh.

Mike

Craig,

We've reached an impasse. Taking production out of team context makes it a discussion of ability (and I don't care what a 70 year-old definition that some writers came up with says about it). "Offensive and defensive strength" - could you give me a practical definition of that?

"while I insist on taking them out of that context."

What logical support do you have that this is the way to get at "actual value" (the first part of the definition). It's hard for me to see any logical basis for insisting that taking batting events out of context leads to an accurate assessment of "actual" value.

Your de-contectualization means that the value you come up with is a hypothetical one: park neutral, batting order neutral, game situation neutral, era neutral (EQR does all of these things). I don't see how "hypothetical" value can be the same as "actual" value.

But by all means, construct a hypothetical team and then place Bonds and Pujols on that team. This will give you a proper estimate of their "hypothetical value".

(RBI/opp - replacement RBI/opp)*opp = RBI above replacement

http://economics.about.com
So basically RBI - Replacement RBI. Opp cancels out of your formula everywhere, unless there's a typo somewhere.

Mike

Robert, I understand the numerical side of this. But, 90 points of OBP is 90 points of OBP. It is the difference between a very good ballplayer (.400 OBP)and a poor one (.310 OBP).

How about looking at it another way? If Bonds were traded straight up for Pujols, would the Giants improve or would the Cardinals? We don't know for sure, but we can say with a pretty high degree of probability based on their performance leading off an inning that the Cardinals would improve and the Giants would decline.

With regard to the effect of "intangibles", one of the interesting points about this year in the NL is that the two teams with the greatest difference between their actual and Pythagorean won-loss record are Houston (-9) and San Francisco (+7). Usually the bullpen is given the lion's share of the credit for these differences, but it sure doesn't apply to Houston. Perhaps SF's bullpen deserves all the credit for this performance, but maybe, just maybe Bonds' inspirational efforts were worth something.

I know this is horribly subjective, but one game this year did it for me. 0-0 game against the Dodgers, top of the ninth, nobody out, 2 outs, Gagne pitching. Bonds walks, steals second and scores on a single. Nobody but Bonds is likely to walk in that situation. Yes, Pujols has hit his walk-off homers, but it's not the same.

I always figured that having the most value consisted in doing the most to help the player's team win, and measuring runs created or any other metric was simply a tool to help one estimate value.

this is what I love about baseball, still fighting for playoff spots and for cy young and mvp awards
AL mvp
as much as I hate to admit this, why hasn't manny ramirez gotten more attention, if you need to be from a playoff team to win mvp then I think that manny should win it, if not, then I think that wells is certainly making a case, but nobody can compare with a-rod's numbers
NL mvp
although my own personal favorite is pujols, can anyone argue with bonds .600+ (can't remember exactly but it's well over .600) obp. I'd love pujols to win it cause he's young and an obviously amazing player, but I unfortunately give it to bonds
AL CY young
can anyone argue with halladay, no. case closed.
hudson pedro and loaiza round out top 4
NL cy young
don't know, but gagne's numbers are pretty amazing

In fact I don't think you can decontextualize Bonds' numbers. If he had Edmonds hitting behind him, he'd receive fewer walks (and most definitely fewer intentional walks). He'd hit more homeruns and make more outs. His OBP would go down and I'm not sure how his slugging would be affected.

I don't think there's any way you could predict how a player as unique as Bonds would be affected based on where he batted, who batted in front of him and behind him, and what his home park was like. That's why I consider context-neutral value to be a fool's errand.

I admit that Bonds is a better hitter than Pujols - he has more hitting ability - and if that's your position I agree 100%. Is it your position that the best player = MVP?

Somebody please alert me when Dudek vs Moffatt MXMLDLECLLCIIIII has concluded. Thank you.

http://economics.about.com
Somebody please alert me when Dudek vs Moffatt MXMLDLECLLCIIIII has concluded.

Poor Gizzi. Still waiting for a title shot after all these posts. I'm sure you'll be a contender some day, sport.

Mike

I dunno. I may have to wait a LONG time, given the nature of your debates. I think I'd rather fight Frederick Tatum anyhow.

http://economics.about.com
I dunno. I may have to wait a LONG time, given the nature of your debates. I think I'd rather fight Frederick Tatum anyhow.

Yeah, atleast you'd have half a chance that way.

I'm not really debating anything, though. As hard as it may be for you to believe, I *am* really interested in what Robert thinks. I'm not advocating any particular position, or atleast any I could convince any sane person of.

Cheers,

Mike

I'm not really debating anything, though. As hard as it may be for you to believe, I *am* really interested in what Robert thinks. I'm not advocating any particular position, or at least any I could convince any sane person of.

You're sure you're not a lawyer?

Mike Green,

Excellent post. I'll try to address some of the points you've brought up.

If Bonds were traded straight up for Pujols, would the Giants improve or would the Cardinals? We don't know for sure, but we can say with a pretty high degree of probability based on their performance leading off an inning that the Cardinals would improve and the Giants would decline.

I'm not sure if this is the right question to ask. This asks about value in a hypotehtical situation, so how exactly are we going to perform a test to measure this? I don't know what leading off an inning has to do with it, unless you think Bonds would lead off an inning for the Cardinals more often than he does for the Giants. And I don't think there's any justification in making assumptions about which team would improve. Remember we have to trade Bonds AND his replacement for when Bonds is out of the lineup for Pujols and his replacement if we want a fair comparison. If you have weak hitters on your team, it might be a better to have a Pujols type, who is less likely to pass on an RBI opportunity to the next guy than Bonds is. We simply don't know enough to make such judgments.

The fact is that the Giants have chosen to bat Barry 4th and his stats are partially a reflection of this. Any attempt to change his actual circumstances will alter his stats in some way, and with a player as unique as Bonds, it's not safe to assume these changes will be trivial.

As far as intangibles go, if someone wants to argue intangibles then that's fine with me. I just won't have very much to say on the topic other than I don't believe that intangibles help a team win unless they are in some way reflected on the field. If someone can make a case that player A has had an effect on the game not measured by the stats and can back it up, then I'm willing to listen.

I don't have access to 2003 pbp data. This would help us a lot in trying to isolate performance in crucial game sitautions. Of course at this point we have completely left the realm of hypothetical value and are squarely focused on actual in-game value in the actual context. Anecdotal evidence doesn't suffice, I think - we need to record what actually happens and how often in each situation.

I always figured that having the most value consisted in doing the most to help the player's team win, and measuring runs created or any other metric was simply a tool to help one estimate value.

I agree with this completely. The key here for me is "the player's team". If there are other contributions Bonds has made that I have not addressed with the Base Runs + Outs Saved method then they need to be brought into the discussion. That's what we are doing here - estimating - since we don't have sufficient data to be precise.

http://economics.about.com
You're sure you're not a lawyer?

Nah. They have to have ethics.

Mike

So basically RBI - Replacement RBI. Opp cancels out of your formula everywhere, unless there's a typo somewhere.

Yes, but you need to know opportunities before you can calculate replacement RBI:

repl RBI = repl RBI rate * opportunities

http://economics.about.com
Ahh.. that makes more sense. All the opps in the numerator and the denominator were getting confusing.

So we have RBI - repl RBI rate * opportunities.

So would (R + RBI)/2 - (some replacement rate)/(opps)*2 make sense?

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Oops.. that should clearly be:

(R + RBI)/2 - (some replacement rate)*(opps)/2

Mike

Yes, that's exactly it. Except that the opps for runs and rbi are different so it probably won't work quite as neatly as the equation you present.

HUH??? I am seeing lists of AL MVP candidates without Garrett Anderson in the top 10??? Out here on the Left Coast, the only question is whether he will be #1, 2, or 3. I don't believe anyone in the league better fits the requirements this year, or looking at his achievements the past 4 years. I'll let his offensive numbers speak for themselves, but he is top 3 as a defensive left fielder as well, a very humble man who still says he must earn what me makes, does a lot in the community, and just plain shows up.
Ok, in case the East Coast isn't aware of it, check out these numbers:

00 ANA 159 647 92 185 40 3 35 117 24 87 7 6 .286 .307 .519 .827
01 ANA 161 672 83 194 39 2 28 123 27 100 13 6 .289 .314 .478 .792
02 ANA 158 638 93 195 56 3 29 123 30 80 6 4 .306 .332 .539 .871
03 ANA 154 618 77 196 48 4 29 116 30 83 6 3 .317 .347 .549 .895

Hi, Brad. I'm from Austin, Texas, where we wear our East Coast Biases on our sleeves. :)

Anderson should end up batting above .310 with 30+ homers and approach 120 RBI. That ought to get him into the top 10 in the real voting. The real voters love ribbies.

But into the top 3? Doubtful. Anderson falls into the category of "good, but not quite good enough" with guys like Vernon Wells, Carlos Lee, Aubrey Huff, Jason Giambi, etc. Playing on a team with a losing record on the West Coast won't help matters.

If only Anderson could draw walks. He's a fantastic hitter, but it's despite having the 40th best OBP in the American League.

Nice numbers Garret,

But Vernon Wells has numbers just as good and he's an above average centrefielder. He's appearing anywhere from 5th to 10th generally.

So... nobody cares that Pujols has more offensive value than Bonds according to virtually every metric you can think of given their respective playing times? That seems like a pretty good definition of most valuable to me.

And by Moffatt's definition, Pujols is the runaway NL MVP. Where else can you get all that performance for $900,000? Um, I don't know. 1985?

http://economics.about.com
And by Moffatt's definition, Pujols is the runaway NL MVP. Where else can you get all that performance for $900,000? Um, I don't know. 1985?

This is very true, and it's one of the reasons why I considered voting for Pujols.

I just have the impression that the whole Bonds saga is making people even more interested in the Giants than the otherwise would be which should lead to the team generating a lot more revenue than they otherwise would.

The problem is I have no idea how much revenue the Giants are generating and how much they would without Bonds. Because of that, it really is just a best guess.

From an ROI standpoint, the MVP has to be Pujols or Willis.

Cheers,

Mike

Pretty rare for one game to start mucking with ballots, but 4 4 4 6 by Delgado is incredible.

AL Runs Batted In

Delgado 141

Rodriguez 117
Wells 116
Anderson 116
Boone 114
Giambi 107
Lee 107
Palmeiro 106
Matsui 106
Tejada 105

AL Runs Scored + Runs Batted In

Delgado 257

Rodriguez 239
Wells 232
Ramirez 228
Garciaparra 223
Boone 222
Giambi 203
Lee 202
Tejada 201
Beltran 200

Craig, you're joking about Rodriguez and Delgado, aren't you? You don't believe this run plus RBI nonsense (using this theory, Tommie Herr might have had a chance at the MVP, batting 3rd on the 85 Cardinals and driving in and scoring 100 runs with 8 home runs; his line that year was roughly .300/.380/.450). I know that RBI opportunities are considered, but surely we have better metrics to deal with offensive performance.

Anyways, Delgado is a better hitter than Rodriguez, for the simple reason that he gets on base significantly more. But, Rodriguez is a Gold Glove quality shortstop, and Delgado is an average defensive first baseman, and Rodriguez' defensive advantage clearly outweighs Delgado's offensive advantage. It's not close.

Never said a word about it, Mike. Amazing how people can take a table of figures and infer all sorts of wild things from it.

Delgado is, unquestionably, a better hitter than A-Rod. That doesn't make him the MVP... I think Rodriguez is, he's a better and more valuable player overall. But Delgado's lead in these measures is substantial, and we can't just wave our hands and make it go away. It needs to be explained.

I think that in a normal context, Runs + RBI is a good shorthand (*very* short) measure for a player's gross offensive production. For players in non-normal contexts, that doesn't work. But yes, a player with 250 runs plus RBI is going to be a better gross offensive player than the one with 160. How much better, and whether they are a better net offensive player depends on a lot of factors.

RBI are a stat that is traditionally very important in MVP voting. I'd rather voters look at least at R+RBI, but what are you going to do?

At any rate, it's hard to vote Juan Gonzalez for MVP twice and ignore 145 RBI when Carlos Delgado does it.

I can't believe that anyone seriously thinks Bonds had the MVP year, but then I would also guess you would give the CY Young award to a reliever. Steriods are a wonderful thing for some guys. Check Bonds records his first three years, he couldn't touch Albert. We all have our opinions, and I think I will go with the opinions of his peers, Albert Pujols, MVP!

I can't believe that anyone seriously thinks Bonds had the MVP year, but then I would also guess you would give the CY Young award to a reliever. Steriods are a wonderful thing for some guys. Check Bonds records his first three years, he couldn't touch Albert. We all have our opinions, and I think I will go with the opinions of his peers, Albert Pujols, MVP!

I can't believe that anyone seriously thinks Bonds had the MVP year, but then I would also guess you would give the CY Young award to a reliever. Steriods are a wonderful thing for some guys. Check Bonds records his first three years, he couldn't touch Albert. We all have our opinions, and I think I will go with the opinions of his peers, Albert Pujols, MVP!

Steroids may be a wonderful thing for some guys, but unfortunately we do not know who does and who does not use steroids. You can speculate all you want about whether Bonds uses them or not, but as far as I can tell, there's no reason for me to assume that he does, just as there's no reason for me to assume that Albert Pujols doesn't use them. Besides that, MLB doesn't seem to care who uses them otherwise there would be extensive testing. So, even if we knew Bonds used them, holding that against him would be as silly as saying a reliever should not be allowed to win the Cy, a pitcher should not be allowed to win the MVP, and a player coming from the Japanese league should not be allowed to win the rookie of the year. You can't just invent your own rules for who's eligible for an award. Now, you could still make a good case for Pujols without using some steroid argument, but I'd go with Bonds. First of all, if there is a viable candidate on a winning team, then I prefer to pick him. But also, there is no one hitter that changes an opposing team's approach more than Bonds, and that is good enough reason for me to give him the MVP.

http://f
Beltre should be the mvp and not barry bonds because people vote for him because he's a member of the 700 club. This isn't one of his best seasons so albert pujols or adrian beltre should be mvp because they have lots homeruns, rbi's, andthey,re are both batting over .320. Barry is so good because he uses steroids. I mean Beltre and Pujols are both under 26 in age so they don't have as much excsperience as Barry because barry is over 40. Barry stinks because he only has 44 homeruns, 101 rbi's, and a 376 batting average

http://f
Beltre should be the mvp and not barry bonds because people vote for him because he's a member of the 700 club. This isn't one of his best seasons so albert pujols or adrian beltre should be mvp because they have lots homeruns, rbi's, andthey,re are both batting over .320. Barry is so good because he uses steroids. I mean Beltre and Pujols are both under 26 in age so they don't have as much excsperience as Barry because barry is over 40. Barry stinks because he only has 44 homeruns, 101 rbi's, and a 376 batting average

http://f
Beltre should be the mvp and not barry bonds because people vote for him because he's a member of the 700 club. This isn't one of his best seasons so albert pujols or adrian beltre should be mvp because they have lots homeruns, rbi's, andthey,re are both batting over .320. Barry is so good because he uses steroids. I mean Beltre and Pujols are both under 26 in age so they don't have as much excsperience as Barry because barry is over 40. Barry stinks because he only has 44 homeruns, 101 rbi's, and a 376 batting average

http://f
Beltre should be the mvp and not barry bonds because people vote for him because he's a member of the 700 club. This isn't one of his best seasons so albert pujols or adrian beltre should be mvp because they have lots homeruns, rbi's, andthey,re are both batting over .320. Barry is so good because he uses steroids. I mean Beltre and Pujols are both under 26 in age so they don't have as much excsperience as Barry because barry is over 40. Barry stinks because he only has 44 homeruns, 101 rbi's, and a 376 batting average