White Sox Interactive Forums
Talking Baseball

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Talking Baseball
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 10-03-2013, 05:14 PM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc View Post
What does his teammates' success have to do with an award for individual achievement? The simple luck of being in a better situation should play no part in the evaluation as far as I'm concerned.
Because part of the assessment of the individual achievement is what role it played in the pursuit of team goals. Its not a stand alone award; historically it largely hasn't been. I would imagine that since the creation of multiple divisions in each league and, thus, multiple playoff teams the number of non-playoff MVP's can be counted on less than 5 fingers. I think that's the way it should be.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-03-2013, 05:27 PM
asindc's Avatar
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 7,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
Because part of the assessment of the individual achievement is what role it played in the pursuit of team goals. Its not a stand alone award; historically it largely hasn't been. I would imagine that since the creation of multiple divisions in each league and, thus, multiple playoff teams the number of non-playoff MVP's can be counted on less than 5 fingers. I think that's the way it should be.
All that assumes that all else is equal, as if Cabrera's teammates are no better than Trout's, which is obviously untrue. Frankly, I think looking at team success is a lazy approach of evaluating individual players. Using team success as a criterion, a player could hit .411, 68 HRs, 218 RBI, 53 SBs, and legitimate Gold Glove defense and because his team finished in 3rd at 83-79, 15 games out of 1st, he is less worthy than the best player on the 1st place team who hit 305., 27 HRs, 110 RBI, 14 SBs with average defense. That's absurd to me.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-03-2013, 05:34 PM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc View Post
All that assumes that all else is equal, as if Cabrera's teammates are no better than Trout's, which is obviously untrue. Frankly, I think looking at team success is a lazy approach of evaluating individual players. Using team success as a criterion, a player could hit .411, 68 HRs, 218 RBI, 53 SBs, and legitimate Gold Glove defense and because his team finished in 3rd at 83-79, 15 games out of 1st, he is less worthy than the best player on the 1st place team who hit 305., 27 HRs, 110 RBI, 14 SBs with average defense. That's absurd to me.
In your hypothetical I would pick the first guy for the award because of the unusual nature of his individual success. I'm not completely opposed to the MVP coming off a non-playoff team; I'm just saying that absent an individual performance far and away above everyone else's I'm picking the guy that made the playoffs.

In this case, both Miggy and Trout had excellent seasons. Overall, particularly when you take into consideration baserunning and defense, Trout's may have been slightly superior. But not enough.

I'm too lazy to look it up but there may have been a handful of monster numbers-producing MVP's off second tier ballclubs during the heyday of the steroid era. But, again, if that's true I'd imagine they had significant statistical advantages over their competitors.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-03-2013, 05:39 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 28,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
Not really. It only suggests that when assessing any number of good players for the purpose of naming one "most valuable", the success or failure of the team they play for is not only relevant, but should be an important part of the criteria. The absence of team success as part of the criterion for naming a player "most valuable" makes no sense to ME since just about any player would list that as his number one goal entering any season.

I realize baseball isn't a team sport in the way other sports are. Absent some record-setting performance in basketball or football, for example, its hard to even imagine having much disagreement at all over the MVP prospects of two statistically comparable players in a scenario where one player's team won its division and the other player's team finished among the also-rans.

Maybe baseball should change the name of its award, then. I'd vote for Cabrera over Trout, just like last year and for largely the same reasons.

As for Sale, Cy Young and MVP aren't similar awards and don't suggest the same type of evaluative process. But it should be noted that there are, I believe, 9 or 10 pitchers that have won both the Cy Young Award and MVP the same season. I'd be very, very surprised if any of those pitchers' clubs failed to make the playoffs in those seasons. They got those MVP's because of what their excellent contributions on the mound meant in a team context.
The difference in baseball is that in basketball great players make their teammates better. This is true of LeBron, as it was true of Jordan or Magic or Bird or whomever else. That's a direct result of gameplay. But how is Trout supposed to make Josh Hamilton not have a terrible season? Or Mark Trumbo not be able to draw a walk? Or be on a team with more than two decent SPs?

Looking at it another way, why does the team argument matter? What has Miguel Cabrera given his team that Mike Trout hasn't? How is Cabrera's overall performance as a valuable baseball player in 2013 better than Mike Trout's?
__________________
Attendance records:
09 : 3-2.
10 : 2-3.
11: 0-1.
12: 2-1; Orlando Hudson and Alex Rios walkoffs.
14: 1-0; Opening Day 5-3 win vs Twins.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-03-2013, 05:44 PM
asindc's Avatar
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 7,428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
In your hypothetical I would pick the first guy for the award because of the unusual nature of his individual success. I'm not completely opposed to the MVP coming off a non-playoff team; I'm just saying that absent an individual performance far and away above everyone else's I'm picking the guy that made the playoffs.

In this case, both Miggy and Trout had excellent seasons. Overall, particularly when you take into consideration baserunning and defense, Trout's may have been slightly superior. But not enough.

I'm too lazy to look it up but there may have been a handful of monster numbers-producing MVP's off second tier ballclubs during the heyday of the steroid era. But, again, if that's true I'd imagine they had significant statistical advantages over their competitors.
This is where we definitely disagree. IMO, Trout was clearly the superior player last season and is clearly the superior player this year.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-03-2013, 05:45 PM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
The difference in baseball is that in basketball great players make their teammates better. This is true of LeBron, as it was true of Jordan or Magic or Bird or whomever else. That's a direct result of gameplay. But how is Trout supposed to make Josh Hamilton not have a terrible season? Or Mark Trumbo not be able to draw a walk? Or be on a team with more than two decent SPs?

Looking at it another way, why does the team argument matter? What has Miguel Cabrera given his team that Mike Trout hasn't? How is Cabrera's overall performance as a valuable baseball player in 2013 better than Mike Trout's?
I guess it comes down to what you believe the MVP Award should represent. If its simply an award for the best individual performance in a season then the team argument doesn't matter. If its an award for individual excellence that contributes in a meaningful way to team success then it does. I subscribe to the latter interpretation and I believe that, up to now, so do most of the voters. Reasonable minds can differ, however.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-03-2013, 05:46 PM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc View Post
This is where we definitely disagree. IMO, Trout was clearly the superior player last season and is clearly the superior player this year.
Fair enough.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-03-2013, 07:58 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 28,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
I guess it comes down to what you believe the MVP Award should represent. If its simply an award for the best individual performance in a season then the team argument doesn't matter. If its an award for individual excellence that contributes in a meaningful way to team success then it does. I subscribe to the latter interpretation and I believe that, up to now, so do most of the voters. Reasonable minds can differ, however.
I'm just trying to understand what the team argument actually means. Where did Trout fail in that regard? How does he not contribute in a meaningful way where Cabrera does?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-03-2013, 08:28 PM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
I'm just trying to understand what the team argument actually means. Where did Trout fail in that regard? How does he not contribute in a meaningful way where Cabrera does?
He, of course, does. But, given comparable performance, the easiest way to determine who actually proved to be more valuable comes down to whose team came closer to realizing the goals all teams have because that's something that's quantifiable and its the reason they're out there playing in the first place. In the last two years, that's been Cabrera's team.

I'm not saying its entirely "fair"; I'm saying it makes the most sense to me because, based on the tons of variables involved, there's no real way of concluding who was most "valuable", anyway. In a team sport, when assessing the value of any one player it makes sense to look at how well the team he plays for performed. Absent good team performance its easy to see the value of even an exceptional player as being somewhat diminished.

If my memory serves me correctly, there was a time when The Sporting News, relevant in those days, selected a Player of The Year. That was an award that more closely honored the spirit of the points you and asindc have been making.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-03-2013, 09:33 PM
A. Cavatica A. Cavatica is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,745
Default

If Casper Wells didn't receive serious consideration in this, his best year, I guess he should hang it up.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-03-2013, 11:30 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 28,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
He, of course, does. But, given comparable performance, the easiest way to determine who actually proved to be more valuable comes down to whose team came closer to realizing the goals all teams have because that's something that's quantifiable and its the reason they're out there playing in the first place. In the last two years, that's been Cabrera's team.

I'm not saying its entirely "fair"; I'm saying it makes the most sense to me because, based on the tons of variables involved, there's no real way of concluding who was most "valuable", anyway. In a team sport, when assessing the value of any one player it makes sense to look at how well the team he plays for performed. Absent good team performance its easy to see the value of even an exceptional player as being somewhat diminished.

If my memory serves me correctly, there was a time when The Sporting News, relevant in those days, selected a Player of The Year. That was an award that more closely honored the spirit of the points you and asindc have been making.
If it's quantifiable, what measure shows what Torii Hunter or Prince Fielder brought to the Tigers that Mike Trout did not bring to the Angels? In what part of the game do Hunter or Fielder, or Cabrera, make their teams better that Trout doesn't? That's what I'm failing to understand. Why wouldn't the MVP every year just be the best player on the best team, in that case?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-04-2013, 02:53 AM
happydude happydude is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago-South Shore
Posts: 2,751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSpivack View Post
If it's quantifiable, what measure shows what Torii Hunter or Prince Fielder brought to the Tigers that Mike Trout did not bring to the Angels? In what part of the game do Hunter or Fielder, or Cabrera, make their teams better that Trout doesn't? That's what I'm failing to understand. Why wouldn't the MVP every year just be the best player on the best team, in that case?
For the most part, the MVP is the best player on a team that could be considered as having had success in that season; that usually means making the playoffs at a minimum. He doesn't necessarily have to be the best player on the best team; but he does need to be the best player on a good team.

Mike Trout played on a team that finished six games under .500 despite having a high payroll; a payroll equivalent to Cabrera's Tigers. A team that has more in common with the Yankees, Dodgers, and Red Sox of the world than it does with Houston or Miami. A team that failed by any measure. No one needs to cry for Mike Trout should he not be named MVP.

Last edited by happydude; 10-04-2013 at 03:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-04-2013, 06:22 AM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 53,054
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
I hope they take it into account anyway. How much "value" can a player be said to have if he's playing a team sport and his team not only misses the playoffs but doesn't even win half of their games? Maybe they should have a Player of the Year Award or something like that to acknowledge overall individual excellence but as long as they're calling it the MVP I definitely think the team's success or lack thereof should be a factor.
Value is not a relative term. Value is value. Let's say you have two people and you ask them to empty their pockets, to see who has the largest single bill. Guy A has 21 bucks on him, a 20 and a single. Guy B has 30 in change and singles. The $20 bill is still the largest (most valuable) bill between the two, even if Guy B has collectively more money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by happydude View Post
For the most part, the MVP is the best player on a team that could be considered as having had success in that season; that usually means making the playoffs at a minimum. He doesn't necessarily have to be the best player on the best team; but he does need to be the best player on a good team.
No, that's horse****, if the MVP was supposed to be the Best Player on the Best Team, they would have worded it that way. It's called the Most Valuable Player. There's nothing in that title that suggests a player's team has to be good. It only addresses the player. It doesn't matter if the best player in the league is on the team that finished 1st or worst, the best player in the league, by definition, has the most value.
__________________
2014 Obligatory Attendance & Record Tracker

0-2

LAST GAME: April 16 - Boston 6, Sox 4 (14)
NEXT GAME: April 26 vs. Tampa Bay
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-04-2013, 08:02 AM
MarksBrokenFoot MarksBrokenFoot is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 49
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
Value is not a relative term. Value is value. Let's say you have two people and you ask them to empty their pockets, to see who has the largest single bill. Guy A has 21 bucks on him, a 20 and a single. Guy B has 30 in change and singles. The $20 bill is still the largest (most valuable) bill between the two, even if Guy B has collectively more money.



No, that's horse****, if the MVP was supposed to be the Best Player on the Best Team, they would have worded it that way. It's called the Most Valuable Player. There's nothing in that title that suggests a player's team has to be good. It only addresses the player. It doesn't matter if the best player in the league is on the team that finished 1st or worst, the best player in the league, by definition, has the most value.
It's more like, Guy B has 30 in change and singles, and Guy A empties his pockets and all his money falls into a sewer drain. Was that a 20 I saw slip through the grate? Who cares, Guy B is buying
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-04-2013, 09:11 AM
Boondock Saint Boondock Saint is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Joliet
Posts: 17,930
Default

I find it incredibly amusing that in one thread, people are arguing that Chris Sale deserves more Cy Young consideration because the team around him didn't give him any help, then in another thread, people are arguing that Mike Trout doesn't deserve more MVP consideration because the team around him didn't give him any help.
__________________
Rock over London. Rock on, Chicago.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.