National League MVP 2011: Braun = MVP! (reply #318)

[brewtank34]

Co-MVP's: Braun/Fielder. I don't see why this wouldn't work. Combined, they are the most fearsome 3-4 in baseball. If both players are legit MVP candidates and in consideration (and on the same team)...why not just give them both the MVP.

 

Obvious answer...because it's not MVPs. Well....my vote would still be for both.

[Funketown]

I hear you on the defense, but I think that he still gets MVP if the season ends now. Braun has been catching up a little. I'm a homer, but I'd vote them 1-2 right now. I don't think splitting the vote will be an issue, because the writers go 1st to 10th.

There's a pretty good chance that you'd be right about Fielder getting the MVP. Ultimately I just don't see someone who is a clear front runner in the NL this year; I think there are probably 5-6 guys that have a good case for the award, and that's not even considering the year Roy Halladay has put up.

[UeckerAddict]

MVP is a crap shoot because no one to this day has defined what it means. If a guy is murdering the ball throughout the year, but is on a crappy team can you really say "He deserves the MVP because his team would have only gotten 68 wins without him instead of the 75 they got with him"? Tough to call that valuable. That's why I can't in good conscience think of Tulo, Kemp, or Reyes as MVP.

 

Of course, Yount did get it '89 win the Crew went 81-81...............

[FVBrewerFan]

It doesn't look like a guys from a bad/mediocre team will have numbers significantly better than Fielder/Braun. So I think we can count on the MVP coming from a playoff team. (Unlike the AL, where Bautista has a shot at it.) Biggest problem for Braun/Fielder is their vote may be split. Braun winning the batting title would help his cause, as winning the HR crown and/or RBI crown would help Fielder. Even in 2011, those are the first 3 numbers most voters look at.

[dlk9s]

If a guy is murdering the ball throughout the year, but is on a crappy team can you really say "He deserves the MVP because his team would have only gotten 68 wins without him instead of the 75 they got with him"?

Of course you can. If someone (presumably an offensive player) is the best player in the league in a given year, he's the MVP and it doesn't matter how good his teammates are.

[cwolf2012]

The only way a player who isn't on a playoff team can win the MLB is if they have an absolutely outstanding year compared to everyone else. ARod did it, and Bautista is doing it now. If that person has people who are comparable in production in their league who are on playoff teams, he probably won't get the MVP.

[UeckerAddict]

If a guy is murdering the ball throughout the year, but is on a crappy team can you really say "He deserves the MVP because his team would have only gotten 68 wins without him instead of the 75 they got with him"?

Of course you can. If someone (presumably an offensive player) is the best player in the league in a given year, he's the MVP and it doesn't matter how good his teammates are.

Then it shouldn't be called Most Valuable Player, it should be called Best Statistical Player.

[gregmag]

If a guy is murdering the ball throughout the year, but is on a crappy team can you really say "He deserves the MVP because his team would have only gotten 68 wins without him instead of the 75 they got with him"?

Of course you can. If someone (presumably an offensive player) is the best player in the league in a given year, he's the MVP and it doesn't matter how good his teammates are.

Then it shouldn't be called Most Valuable Player, it should be called Best Statistical Player.

But winning games has value whether a team wins 60 games or 110. This is one of the reasons that WARP is useful as a simple concept, whatever you think of any given version of WARP as a calculation. A "five win" player is going to put five wins in his team's column whether the team is in last place or first. Production is production; good production is valuable. So of course a player on a 100-loss team can be the most valuable player, if that player does more to help his team win games than any other player in the league. Besides, what's the alternative -- to give the MVP to a guy who doesn't deserve it because he's lucky enough to have great teammates?

 

[UeckerAddict]

Of course you can. If someone (presumably an offensive player) is the best player in the league in a given year, he's the MVP and it doesn't matter how good his teammates are.

Then it shouldn't be called Most Valuable Player, it should be called Best Statistical Player.

But winning games has value whether a team wins 60 games or 110. This is one of the reasons that WARP is useful as a simple concept, whatever you think of any given version of WARP as a calculation. A "five win" player is going to put five wins in his team's column whether the team is in last place or first. Production is production; good production is valuable. So of course a player on a 100-loss team can be the most valuable player, if that player does more to help his team win games than any other player in the league. Besides, what's the alternative -- to give the MVP to a guy who doesn't deserve it because he's lucky enough to have great teammates?

It becomes a semantic argument.

 

Yes, I believe a guy with a WARP of 4 for a team that wins a division by 2 games is more valuable that a guy with a WARP of 6 for a team that finishes in 4th. I agree that the latter is better statistically. Does he have value? Sure. Is it more valuable? In my opinion, no. If it's a best player award, I'm all for it. But calling it MVP and using that formula seems odd to me.

[gregmag]

Then are you defining "value" to mean only winning the division? What if a guy plays for a second-place team? A third-place team that wins 90 games? What if a team is leading the division, the MVP candidate plays at the same level all year, but the team's second and third best players get hurt and the team ends up finishing under .500? How do you draw the line to decide when a player qualifies for MVP?

 

Also, you're using the word "statistically" in an odd way. Did anybody ever suggest that the MVP should be chosen in a way that doesn't focus on statistics? After all, wins and losses are statistics too. You're just arguing for a particular kind of statistical analysis, one in which the team's record trumps all other statistics. To put it another way, you want a "best player statistically award" too, but you just want to limit the award to the best player on the best team.

 

The argument you're making obviously has a lot of supporters, and you're making a strong case for it. I've just never gotten the argument, because it seems to assume that its underlying logic is simple and straightforward, when really it's quite tricky and, I think, underdeveloped.

[nate82]

McCutchen is a great player but he is not having an MVP like year. Maybe if there wasn't another player playing as good as he is then yes like in 89' when Yount won the MVP. I just don't see how McCutchen is more deserving over Fielder, Upton, Braun, Berkman, and Kemp. To me Fielder, Upton, Braun, and Kemp are all having a better year than McCutchen is having and I really like McCutchen but it is a very long stretch to put McCutchen in the running as the MVP. For me it goes Fielder, Kemp, Upton, and Braun for the top 4 and that is a very very very close top 4 with any one of the top four winning the MVP award. McCutchen would be tied for 5th with Berkman and McCann. I just do not see how you can place McCutchen over any of the top four right now overall I believe the top four are having a better year than McCutchen.

[UeckerAddict]

I can understand that. I really can. It can get tricky if a team is so close, but doesn't quite do it. That argument: "They were in a pennant race and lost, but never would have been anywhere close without (insert player)" is a valid one. I am for that, but many people don't even buy that one. Did Gino Toretta really deserve the Heisman over Marshall Faulk? No. His team was in the title game. I would have given to Faulk for making his 3 win team a 9 win team. I know it's not baseball, but I'm using that as a microcosm in support of what you said.

 

But now I am using Matt Kemp as a frame of reference. His team is bad with him and would be bad without him. Again, I may have muddled it with the term "statistical," but I question the words "Most Valuable." Most valuable to what? With a player on a good team, it is easier to give substance to value.

 

If you want to call it Best Player or The Babe Ruth Award or whatever, I get it. Under the defining term "Most Valuable," I don't.

 

CC Sabathia was really valuable to the 2008 Brewers. He was not nearly as valuable to the Indians that year, even though he was the exact same player.

 

EDIT: This was in reference to greg. Not the previous poster.

[Schlitz001]

Why would Kemp be more valuable to the Brewers than the Dodgers. Doesn't he provide the same amount of value to both teams?

 

Every year this award becomes an argument over what "valuable" means. I would agree that it should be renamed "The Best Player" award, but then we'd be arguing about what statistic best defines "best".

[dlk9s]

If a guy is murdering the ball throughout the year, but is on a crappy team can you really say "He deserves the MVP because his team would have only gotten 68 wins without him instead of the 75 they got with him"?

Of course you can. If someone (presumably an offensive player) is the best player in the league in a given year, he's the MVP and it doesn't matter how good his teammates are.

Then it shouldn't be called Most Valuable Player, it should be called Best Statistical Player.

When can everyone just admit that "Most Valuable Player" is just a fancy way of saying "Best Player" or "Most Outstanding Player?"

[Oldcity]

It would be funny if McCutchen won only because it would be the second straight year the NL MVP wasn't voted in or picked by the manager for the original All-Star roster.

 

He's been slumping a bit lately though. He won't win it.

[jjfanec]

Interesting Jayson Stark article on espn.com about the NL MVP. He talks about how wide-open the race is this year. They look at WAR and also get quotes from scouts and executives on the players. Here are some of the thoughts

They look at Kemp Tulo and Votto and talk about the fact that their teams are not winning and how that will really hurt them.

Talk about how Reyes will be hurt by the injury and a non-playoff team, and how McCann will be hurt by his injury.

McCutchen has good numbers but a that the Pirates slide will hurt him.

Talk about how Victorino is actually overshadowed by the Phillies pitchers

St. Louis big three just dont stand out from each other enough

 

So they think it comes down to three. Braun, Fielder, and Upton. They have a big section debating Braun and Prince. Here are a couple quotes

""If you're picking your MVP based purely off production, it's hard not

to give it to Prince," one NL scout said. "But if you look hard at the

other guy, he adds another dimension. He's got usable speed. And he's

not a great defender, but his defense is far superior to Prince. And

he's a guy who just brings so much to the game every day. Of course, he

also has an advantage Prince doesn't: He's got Prince hitting behind

him."

 

If you use WAR as your guide, Braun is your man.

Baseball-reference.com ranks him second in the NL among all position

players (with Fielder not even in the top 10). And although Braun is

just sixth in the FanGraphs computations, he leads Fielder in both

overall WAR (5.5-4.1) and offensive runs added (42.4 to 39.2).

But

it's Fielder who is on top in OPS, on-base percentage and win

probability added. It's Fielder who leads the whole league in

intentional walks. And it's Fielder who has played every game, while

Braun has battled persistent hamstring issues.

"So I'm going with Prince," one NL executive said. "They're pulling away, and he's been the main cog."

Well,

that was his take until he heard Fielder's home/road splits. But after

learning that Fielder's home slugging percentage was 169 points higher

than on the road (.644-.475), and his home OPS was 225 points higher

(1.084-.859), the same exec said: "Then it's probably the other guy."

Interesting thoughts on Upton as well.

So when that same scout compares the MVP cases for Fielder and Braun

with the case for Upton, he says unequivocally: "I'd put either of them

above Upton."

Not sure how it will end up but according to this Prince and Braun are the front-runners in some scouts and execs minds

 

 

[Dragonbait]

So when that same scout compares the MVP cases for Fielder and Braun with the case for Upton, he says unequivocally: "I'd put either of them above Upton."

 

 

I'm sure that'll make the fans in AZ happy w/ us..

[RockCoCougars]

If people are going to use WAR to vote for MVP, why not just make it like the BCS and give the top spot the trophy? Despite what WAR says, I still say that Fielder is MVP, and it's not really close.

[thebruce44]

If people are going to use WAR to vote for MVP, why not just make it like the BCS and give the top spot the trophy? Despite what WAR says, I still say that Fielder is MVP, and it's not really close.

I don't think anyone is just using WAR to vote. It seems like they are using it as just one piece to make their overall decision.

Personally, I think its Braun and its really not even close. WAR happens to back that up.

[dlk9s]

So when that same scout compares the MVP cases for Fielder and Braun with the case for Upton, he says unequivocally: "I'd put either of them above Upton."

 

 

I'm sure that'll make the fans in AZ happy w/ us..

At least it isn't Rickie Weeks above Upton.

[fondybrewfan]

Personally I think it is a crapshoot and will be very close with Braun, Fielder, Berkman, Reyes, Kemp, and Upton all in contention. If a requirement is to be on a contending team then the two Brewer guys have the advantage over everyone with the exception of Upton. The obvious downside being that they are competing against one another and might split the vote. My money is on Kemp. I would probably pick Fielder over Braun if it came down to our two guys.

[UeckerAddict]

Jose Reyes can't be in contention anymore. He may well miss a month's worth of games on a sub .500 team.

[endaround]

Ryan Braun has been the best offensive player not named Bautista this year.

[jjfanec]

If people are going to use WAR to vote for MVP, why not just make it like the BCS and give the top spot the trophy? Despite what WAR says, I still say that Fielder is MVP, and it's not really close.

I don't think anyone is just using WAR to vote. It seems like they are using it as just one piece to make their overall decision.

Personally, I think its Braun and its really not even close. WAR happens to back that up.

I would agree it is Braun and it isnt close if Braun hadnt been hurt. I think that brings it much closer. As has been stated by numerous scouts (although some on this board disagree) Braun is a much better defender. He is not a good defender just much better than Prince. The hitting numbers are eerily similar but he also has 23 stolen bases which is pretty big. I know Prince has not had protection in the lineup so that should be taken into effect as well.

 

I think it is Prince, Braun and Upton. No other guy really seems like a great candidate. I could see Kemp and Tulo if no guy on a contender was having a really good year but those 3 are.

[markedman5]

Yeah its not going to be Kemp or Reyes.

 

The only way a guy on a non contender seems to win is if their is no worthy candidate on a division winner or if a player is head and shoulders above everyone else.

 

Clearly that is not the case this year.