NL MVP Race

[TURBO]

If MVP truly means most valuable player, who has been more valuable than Yelich to the Brewers? Yes, maybe Baez or Arenado are better players than Yelich, but if you remove Yelich do the Brewers even sniff the playoffs, let alone the division? If you remove Baez I would imagine the Cubs still finish in first place.

 

I realize that's not how the MVP is viewed, but interesting none the less.

 

I literally see the reverse argument from Cubs fans on twitter and comment sections. They think the Cubs wouldn't make the playoffs w/o Baez and the Brewers would still make the playoffs w/o Yelich.

 

I think it's a lame argument from anyone because it's impossible to substantiate.

 

I would argue opposite.

 

The Brewers do not sniff the playoffs without Yelich, no way, no how.

[MrTPlush]

Yelich .321BA Baez .327OB.

 

This to me makes Yelich the easy pick. The end of the season he literally could be ahead of Baez's OBP in winning the BA title. Especially when as someone noted, these two were tied in the BA ASB?/as 2nd half began.

 

I mean sure, use one stat to make an argument. Javy Baez has had a huge impact on offense even if he doesn't have a bunch of walks. A 129 OPS+ is pretty darn solid.

 

It is a close race all things considered. I like Yelich more because he truly has an elite impact on offense and is still a good defender (though vastly overrated). Yelich can also use his speed on the bases, unlike Baez who pads the SB stat getting caught almost a third of the time.

[homer]

Yelich .321BA Baez .327OB.

 

This to me makes Yelich the easy pick. The end of the season he literally could be ahead of Baez's OBP in winning the BA title. Especially when as someone noted, these two were tied in the BA ASB?/as 2nd half began.

 

I mean sure, use one stat to make an argument. Javy Baez has had a huge impact on offense even if he doesn't have a bunch of walks. A 129 OPS+ is pretty darn solid.

 

It is a close race all things considered. I like Yelich more because he truly has an elite impact on offense and is still a good defender (though vastly overrated). Yelich can also use his speed on the bases, unlike Baez who pads the SB stat getting caught almost a third of the time.

 

Well it's a big difference maker. One guy has a .390 OBP and the other a .327

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Yea I don't think I'd say the Cubs haven't won extra games due to Baez. But in this context, his replacements would be former AS Russell and Zobrist having a great year. For much of this year Yelich's replacement would have been Broxton/Perez or Santana who fell apart. so I think it would be accurate that he's more valuable in the sense we don't have good replacements. But I don't think it's really right or fair to use team depth behind him as a negative.

 

Actually Yelich's replacement would have likely been more playing time for Braun. It would have also meant that Brett Phillips likely would not have been traded, as he would have received regular playing time in LF during Braun's absences. I think the Brewers came out ahead

[tmwiese55]

I phrased it that way because Braun was hurt for a good portion again this year and likely played darn near as much as he could as it was. Yes, didn't think to include Phillips, just forgot, but yea that's not much of a good option either with how he's hit so point is kind of the same. Also, forgot to include more Thames in OF but again he's been hurt and bad too. So point is kind of the same, huge drop off after Yelich.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I phrased it that way because Braun was hurt for a good portion again this year and likely played darn near as much as he could as it was. Yes, didn't think to include Phillips, just forgot, but yea that's not much of a good option either with how he's hit so point is kind of the same. Also, forgot to include more Thames in OF but again he's been hurt and bad too. So point is kind of the same, huge drop off after Yelich.

 

Yeah, no doubt it would have been a huge drop-off. I think Lewis Brinson probably would have been in the OF mix as well, as I think the Cain FA deal would have happened regardless of Yelich being acquired. But if he wasn't, an OF of Braun/Phillips in LF, Brinson/Broxton in CF and Santana/Thames in RF would have been pretty scary.

[MrTPlush]

Yelich .321BA Baez .327OB.

 

This to me makes Yelich the easy pick. The end of the season he literally could be ahead of Baez's OBP in winning the BA title. Especially when as someone noted, these two were tied in the BA ASB?/as 2nd half began.

 

I mean sure, use one stat to make an argument. Javy Baez has had a huge impact on offense even if he doesn't have a bunch of walks. A 129 OPS+ is pretty darn solid.

 

It is a close race all things considered. I like Yelich more because he truly has an elite impact on offense and is still a good defender (though vastly overrated). Yelich can also use his speed on the bases, unlike Baez who pads the SB stat getting caught almost a third of the time.

 

Well it's a big difference maker. One guy has a .390 OBP and the other a .327

 

Defense is a massive difference maker too. Average corner outfielder vs. very good middle infielder.

[tmwiese55]

Again, if that had ever been factored into the decision in previous years I'd get it more. But it seems like finding a way to justify giving it to Baez when normally it wouldn't really even be that close of a call. for example, the top 3 in NL voting last year were Stanton, Votto, goldschmidt. While Arenado, one of the best 3B defensive players ever came in 4th. Year before had Bryant and Murphy top 2, can't imagine Murphy is rated anything more than blah on D but I don't know.

[FVBrewerFan]

FWIW, Yelich love is growing. Bleacher Report has him as the favorite, 2/1 odds. Baez is 3/1.

[lcbj68c]

 

Yup only happened once. My point is just that if you are of the opinion that the WS MVP can only go to the winning team, then that general principle can also extend to the full season obviously to a lesser degree. Sometimes it is useful to look at the extreme cases to make a point. If you think it is reasonable that the WS MVP can only come from the winning team, then I don't think it is consistent to think that letting playoffs vs not playoffs be a deciding factor in the season vote is insane and totally unreasonable.

 

Last year was a good example where the clear top players where not playoff bound so it was a tossup between then. I think in the AL if you have Trout who is clearly the best player in the league vs Betts who is having a career year not too far behind Trout but on the team with the most wins in the league Betts is a fine choice. I also think Trout winning is a fine choice since he is clearly the best player. I know Trout has an insane slash line, but Betts does have more bWAR and fWAR.

 

Based on the history of the award, I think it should go to Betts. In general, the same guy is usually the best player in the league for a stretch but they don't just always win the MVP. Willie Mays led his league in WAR 10 times but won 2 MVPs. No one thinks any less of Mays. The only guy ever with more than 3 Bonds. If Trout finishes his career with 3-4 that would line up with all of the other inner circle HOF all-time greats.

 

I hate replying with a lack of substance, but you put my feelings into words so very well. Winning matters. It's not the only thing, no. I'd give Trout a 2nd place vote though. Not voting Trout for 1st place MVP doesn't diminish him in any way. It's not a slight on him at all. But the MVP vote for me, is going to be a guy that elevates his team into the post-season, at a minimum. You can ballyhoo over the terminology all you want, but to me, it's not a most outstanding player award. If that were the case, we'd use an objective measure like fWAR. It's a most valuable player award. The most valuable players are those who cause their team to play in October. It's a subjective measure to me and thus Betts.

[tmwiese55]

I know it's all semantics but Valuable really shouldn't matter what team you're on. You're still valuable if you're team only wins 78 times. If the award said most outstanding player on a winning team, or most valuable player on a winning team then this thinking would make sense. But it's just people making up their own definition Valuable that isn't there.

 

For example, if you've ever seen the movie the Scout. Basically a struggling scout finds the best player in the world and he can basically pitch a perfect game every time and hit a HR almost every at bat. If that guy was playing on this year's Orioles he'd still be the most valuable player in the league to take them from 42 wins to 75 or whatever it would be. This is assuming he can only pitch a normal 1/5 of the games and that eventually teams are just going to walk him. Mookie Betts taking his team to 108 wins instead of 103 isn't more valuable.

 

That's my two cents. Winning team is a tie breaker if you can't decide to me, otherwise the best player is the most valuable.

[FVBrewerFan]

I know it's all semantics but Valuable really shouldn't matter what team you're on. You're still valuable if you're team only wins 78 times. If the award said most outstanding player on a winning team, or most valuable player on a winning team then this thinking would make sense. But it's just people making up their own definition Valuable that isn't there.

 

For example, if you've ever seen the movie the Scout. Basically a struggling scout finds the best player in the world and he can basically pitch a perfect game every time and hit a HR almost every at bat. If that guy was playing on this year's Orioles he'd still be the most valuable player in the league to take them from 42 wins to 75 or whatever it would be. This is assuming he can only pitch a normal 1/5 of the games and that eventually teams are just going to walk him. Mookie Betts taking his team to 108 wins instead of 103 isn't more valuable.

 

That's my two cents. Winning team is a tie breaker if you can't decide to me, otherwise the best player is the most valuable.

 

Meh. Roy Hobbs is more Valuable than him. Dude had a lightning powered bat, case closed.

[topper09er]

It comes down to, do you think valuable means most valuable to any team, or most valuable to his team this year. How much value is there in 78 wins? Last I checked you aren't playing in the playoffs so there is no difference between the Orioles and Phillies.

 

As Branch Rickey said to Ralph Kiner, "We finished last with you, we can finish last without you."

 

I think post season/team contribution can be a deciding factor and this year I think Trout and Betts are close enough to consider it. I think 2010 NL is another good example. Votto and Pujols were pretty close, Pujols a slight edge in WAR but they were very close. I think Votto should have won considering he was the cornerstone for the division champs Reds, no way they win the central that year with any random AAA 1B instead of Votto.

 

Other years a guy might be so far ahead he deserves it no matter what. Stanton last year is a good case, hitting 20 more HRs than the next guy is pretty dominant.

[SRB]

Defense is a massive difference maker too. Average corner outfielder vs. very good middle infielder.

 

I disagree with the advanced metrics on Yelich's 2018 defense. He is well above average, in my opinion, and has the reputation to go along with that insofar as it matters for voting.

[tmwiese55]

Topper's first line is an interesting way of looking at it, I haven't seen it framed that way before. For me though, I see no clarification in that saying to any team, your team, winning team. I simply see the phrase the most valuable player.

 

So that's just how simply I look at it. And I don't see the logic in punishing a player for having worse teammates than someone else and/or being on a team geographically unlucky that year regarding who his team is up against in the division. I'd view team records/playoffs as the tie breaker if you just can't make a decision, and not so much with the logic that he deserves because his team won but because he played in more intense/pressure situations and still produced the same ballpark stats as opposed to playing with no pressure and in more meaningless games when it might have been slightly easier to accrue the stats.

[StearnsFTW]

Defense is a massive difference maker too. Average corner outfielder vs. very good middle infielder.

 

I disagree with the advanced metrics on Yelich's 2018 defense. He is well above average, in my opinion, and has the reputation to go along with that insofar as it matters for voting.

 

Agree. And they're not even close on offense. Yelich is vastly better in every meaningful stat.

 

Edit: Also, just looked at both of their advanced defensive stats. I don't see any evidence that Baez is a plus defender at any position. Decent at both 2B and SS according to DRS and UZR. Are there better metrics than those available? If so, mea culpa.

 

Inside edge paints Yelich as a better defender than Baez, but of course at far less valuable positions. I can't see how an unbiased, informed voter could vote for Baez to be honest.

[topper09er]

And I don't see the logic in punishing a player for having worse teammates than someone else

 

But do you see the logic when it comes down to the world series MVP?

[tmwiese55]

And I don't see the logic in punishing a player for having worse teammates than someone else

 

But do you see the logic when it comes down to the world series MVP?

 

I don't. I thought it was a joke that LBJ didn't get the MVP in the first GSW/Cavs finals. I don't have a baseball example off the top of my head though. I'd guess maybe Bonds in 2002 but I have no idea on the stats. Spitballing here, never thought of it before now, but I would guess that it would be much more difficult to create a clear cut advantage in such a small sample though so likely very difficult. Basketball is a bit different with how much impact one player can have in a game. Taking an extreme example though like the movie example, say a SP threw 3 perfect games in his 3 starts but his team lost the other 4 games. To me that guy would almost assuredly be the MVP barring something miraculous from someone on the winning team.

 

Also, good discussion. I realize there is no right answer here and see both sides. Just sharing my view/logic on it.

 

ETA: I think StearnsFTW just above this nails my take on Yelich/Baez well said.

[MrTPlush]

Wow I hate comparing the actual MVP to a series MVP. The later is a gimmicky award...the former is quite an accomplishment and deserves to go to the best player in baseball.

 

What next? Player of the week must come from a team with a winning record that week? Terrible tragedy when anyone doesn’t consider someone because they aren’t on a winning team. Why are those guy suddenly knocked down to #2. How are they even #2? Some people vote in the weirdest ways.

[Ennder]

I believe the proper way to define MVP is basically the player who leads the league in WAR. Now WAR itself is an approximation. In reality every person should sort of be creating their own WAR that fits how they view the game in their own head.

 

For hitters this isn't too difficult but the actual WAR stat does a decent job of assigning value. I tend to value fielding a bit less than real WAR does so I don't count it quite as much. So for me I'd fudge the best defensive players WAR down a little bit.

 

I think pitching WAR the actual stat is downright awful so I have to go through a much larger internal adjustment for my personal pitching WAR. I mostly care about things like K% vs BB% and not things like ERA which I feel is a flawed stat and mostly a team stat.

 

Some people really heavily favor context so maybe they give Yelich bonus points for being so good down the stretch etc. The overall premise stands though, you should be able to create a player value in your head and the player with the most value should be MVP. It has nothing to do with how much the team needed you etc, none of that has anything to do with an individual stat. I mean with that reasoning Betts shouldn't be an MVP because the Red Sox could have won the division without him, that just seems flawed.

[nate82]

I believe the proper way to define MVP is basically the player who leads the league in WAR. Now WAR itself is an approximation. In reality every person should sort of be creating their own WAR that fits how they view the game in their own head.

 

For hitters this isn't too difficult but the actual WAR stat does a decent job of assigning value. I tend to value fielding a bit less than real WAR does so I don't count it quite as much. So for me I'd fudge the best defensive players WAR down a little bit.

 

I think pitching WAR the actual stat is downright awful so I have to go through a much larger internal adjustment for my personal pitching WAR. I mostly care about things like K% vs BB% and not things like ERA which I feel is a flawed stat and mostly a team stat.

 

Some people really heavily favor context so maybe they give Yelich bonus points for being so good down the stretch etc. The overall premise stands though, you should be able to create a player value in your head and the player with the most value should be MVP. It has nothing to do with how much the team needed you etc, none of that has anything to do with an individual stat. I mean with that reasoning Betts shouldn't be an MVP because the Red Sox could have won the division without him, that just seems flawed.

 

So why not just use wRC+ instead of WAR for positional players?

[Ennder]

I don't think you should just use a single stat, you need to view it through your own lens. Pretty much all stats still have room for interpretation. For my personal taste anything you add a + to the end of a stat you are usually getting into muddy waters. In the specific example of wRC+ I think park factors are so flawed that the stat loses any meaning.

[StearnsFTW]

It'll be a travesty if he doesn't win it. Period.

[MrTPlush]

Tonight clinched it in my opinion. If we somehow win the division it is a given he will win.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

"I'm still going with Baez, 'cause he's been doing it all year." - Harold Reynolds

 

Um, excuse me Harold? I know Yelich's second half has been better than his first half, but the guy was still an All Star. It just looks bad in comparison to his otherworldly 2nd half numbers.

 

Harold Reynolds is an idiot.