Jonah Keri Trumps the BBWAA

Take a look at the following list of runs above replacement from this morning's AL MVP post, go read Jonah Keri's MVP article, and then cue the Lavern and Shirley theme song. It's almost like there actually are smart people out there. Somewhere.

RAR Player
80 Cliff Lee
76 Roy Halladay
76 Grady Sizemore
69 Alex Rodriguez
67 Ervin Santana
62 Javier Vazquez
61 Dustin L Pedroia
61 Joe Mauer

7 months ago Sky Kalkman Comment 46 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This is pretty good:

There are some voters who’ll have a hard time voting for anyone who hit .268 (well, not the geniuses who picked Ryan Howard in the NL, but other folks)

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 19, 2008 8:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

From the guy who left Pedroia off his ballot...

He basically says “my bad” and:

Here is my full ballot:

Kevin Youkilis, Francisco Rodriguez, Justin Morneau, Josh Hamilton, Carlos Quentin, Alex Rodriguez, Cliff Lee, Joe Mauer, Grady Sizemore, Carlos Pena.

Did I perhaps get too “cute” at the bottom of the ballot? Yeah, probably. Was that a mistake? Yeah, probably. Was it a mistake to leave him out of the top five; in retrospect, yeah, it was.

I give him points for the mea culpa, but if he thinks including ARod, Lee, Mauer, Sizemore, and Pena in his top ten were “cute” choices, we have different definitions of that word.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 19, 2008 8:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

link:

http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/11/my-mvp-vote.html

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 19, 2008 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

None of his bottom five are "cute" picks at all.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 19, 2008 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

If he flipped his top five with his bottom five, it would be a better ballot. Actually, maybe he listed the ballots in reverse order…?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 19, 2008 8:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pena first is still silly.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 19, 2008 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's hard to be the most valuable player on the league when you team sucks, or is just over .500

Get over it. It’s a shitty award, but it is what it is. The guy who helped his team being good the most, not being average. That’s the award, it’s right there. It’s not like the GG, which are supposed to be handed to the best fielders at their position. The GGs are dumb mostly because they’re nearly always wrong. MVP is different, you can hate it for the concept but not because it doesn’t award the best player.

Or maybe it’s just me.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 19, 2008 10:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

What about the Cy Young?

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 19, 2008 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's about the best pitcher, so put that together with the GG

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 10:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So why is the MVP NOT about the best player?

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 20, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

because the award says most valuable player not most best player?

free chris getz!

by larry on Nov 20, 2008 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Cy Young says Cy Young.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 20, 2008 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You do know that 3 seconds looking around on wikipedia would have answered that, right?

Cy Young = “The Cy Young Award is an honor given annually in baseball to the best pitcher in Major League Baseball (MLB)”

MVP = “The Most Valuable Player Award (commonly known as the MVP award) is an annual award given to one outstanding player in each league of Major League Baseball.”

There’s a big difference there. Also, I have not found a link to the BBWAA MVP voting criteria, but in there it also says that it’s not about the best player. It’s about the player who helped the most his team being good-to-great, not being average.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying that it's right

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was being sarcastic.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 20, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok, then

My bad.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I should've used caps.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 20, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And maybe a funny pic, even though I don't think you can find a funny pic about a Cy Young winner

I can only think of one funny pitcher:

And he wasn’t even good…

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Do not use the Wikipedia explanation of the award.

From Patrio’s website:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from one to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters.

Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 20, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

link

http://walksaber.blogspot.com/2008/09/most-vacuous-post.html

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 20, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't use the wikipedia explanation of the award

Just quoted a part of the article to make a point. Thank you for the link.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sure.

and read the directions given to the voters on each award.

free chris getz!

by larry on Nov 20, 2008 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See above.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 20, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sarcasm isn't allowed on this site. read the community guidelines.

free chris getz!

by larry on Nov 20, 2008 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't hate :<

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 20, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One, the official description of the award is very vague...

…meaning you can’t really call anyone’s interpretation wrong. We can debate which definition is “better”, however. I was listening to talk radio this morning (yes, that’s a mistake) and they were debating Mussina’s HoF credentials. One guy brought up the fact that he had never won a Cy Young. Now, I don’t think this is an automatic disqualification anyway, but what exactly does that mean when we have all these creative interpretations of Cy Young and MVP? In retrospect, we almost always treat the CY and MVP as the best pitcher/player in the league. But if we don’t use those definitions in real time, we can’t hold the other interpretation in later discussions. It’s inconsistent.

Two, clean up the language, thanks.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 20, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What can I say...

We tend to think that the MVP is the best player, but when you check the history of players who won the award you see that is just not that. Or you get pissed because it’s not that. I think that the MVP is the guy who ‘carries’ his team into the playoffs or keep ‘em in the race. That’s the very definition of ‘value’ in a team sports. It’s unfair, sure, but it’s a somehow valid point. The guy just has to make his team good. Still, there have been lots of wrong winners as well. Andre Dawson won it in a year his team finished dead last in the division, with a OBP of .328. Jack Clark had an OBP .130 points higher and his team made the post-season. It’s not a perfect award, and it might not be the right one. But, like I said, it is what it is.

Pardon my french… And I also don’t think Moose should be on the HoF.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This might come out more harsh than I intend...

But we don’t care about what you think about Moose and the Hall of Fame. What we care about is WHY you think what you think about Moose and the Hall of Fame. So please share more of that.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 20, 2008 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why would I think of why I think what I think about?

I’m kidding. Moose has borderline numbers, like Curt Schilling, Tom Glavine, David Cone, Tim Hudson and lots of others. You can make a point for all of these guys, but having them at the HoF is a stretch. Mussina has better numbers than all of those, but still I don’t think he was ever a dominant pitcher (not because he didn’t win a Cy Young, it has nothing to do with that).

If you think otherwise, then feel free to make me wrong. I haven’t put a lot of thought about this one, I just don’t feel he should be in.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm gonna have to go ahead and seriously question any methodology that has javier vazquez at 62 RAR.

free chris getz!

by larry on Nov 20, 2008 10:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I’ve always thought I was the only who did think Vasquez was somehow worse than his stats. He never looked quite good when I saw him pitching.

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he is worse than his peripherals.

we can theorize all day long why but he’s 32 and been around a long time now so i don’t think this is going to change.

free chris getz!

by larry on Nov 20, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

The numbers just overrate Vazquez…

Mother---- him and John Wayne!

by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that DIPS-style metrics will miss the boat, sometimes to large degrees (Vazquez).

But I will take the error on tRA well ahead of the error of ERA or anything else.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 20, 2008 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe they should figure out what's wrong with their measurement.

because i see this all the time. without being a statistical genius, it seems to me that there’s some serious overweighting of the contributions of pitchers in this.

free chris getz!

by larry on Nov 20, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two significant things that are wrong with the measurement:

Assuming outfield flies (and groundballs, etc) are equivalent from all pitchers. They are not, but they are a lot closer to equivalent than ERA assumes them to be.
Assuming events combine in random ways. This is the Tom Glavine anecdote: his ERAs were always significantly lower than his composite ERAs because he had a different pitching style with the bases empty than with runners on. For example, you to attack the zone more with no runners on, giving up more homeruns, but a lot fewer walks. That trade-off isn’t worth it, however, with runners on base, because a homerun is twice (or 3x or 4x) more deadly, whereas a walk doesn’t increase its effect by as much.

By over-weighting, do you mean that the RAR for pitchers seem high compared to position players? If so, the 2008 AL is a little strange due to the lack of many high-value position players. Last year, a bunch of guys would have outpaced Lee and Halladay. In the NL, Webb and Lincecum would be somewhere in the 5-7 range (I think, I can look later).

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 20, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i think it just seems high in general.

again, “seems” – purely anecdotal, i don’t have much to back it up.

i guess my more general point is that when i see something as ridiculous as javier vazquez ranked that high (this is not the first sort of list that has done this), it makes the whole list look less credible. i understand their are outliers and funny things that happen with data (and nothing is perfect) – i guess i’m not sure others are that generous. and it hurts the credibility of seamheads.

free chris getz!

by larry on Nov 20, 2008 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

here's an interesting question...

What other guys out there do “we” think aren’t as good as their peripherals suggest. Who else other than Vazquez?

Bonderman?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 20, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he's a usual choice

i’ll think about it. i know the term over at BP is “PECOTA favorites”.

free chris getz!

by larry on Nov 20, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, and I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate here...

What are the chances that Vazquez’s ERA/DIPS difference is really a fluke? That is, what is the probability that a 3.75-ERA true-talent pitcher puts up a 4.50 ERA over five seasons (or whatever the numbers are). Over 25 seasons, how many careers like Vazquez would we expect to see just by chance alone? Is it five? One? .0000002?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 20, 2008 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it's certainly possible, if improbable (i'd bet).

of course, one could say that’s its not a fluke with vazquez; people often make the argument that he’s “soft” or not “clutch” or can’t handle the pressure or whatever. it’s not like the criticism he received down the stretch this year was something new. obviously we can’t quantify that stuff (at least i don’t think we can) and i’m never one to point to that kind of stuff to explain performance largely for that reason. but that’s certainly one way to explain his performance. i’ve got others but i’ve fought that fight many times before and don’t want to again.

free chris getz!

by larry on Nov 20, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Are soft, unclutch, and can't handle the pressure all the same criticism?

That is, is the supposed explanation for Vazquez’s ERA not matching his DIPS that he pitches worse with runners on base?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 20, 2008 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that's part of it.

also that he performs really great against the royals and not so great against good teams. there’s also the issue with the sixth inning that is rather odd. i’ve done my best to try to refute these arguments with analysis and so on but i’m not that good of a stats guy (also don’t quite have the time) to get exhaustive with all this stuff. when you look at this stats (the sixth inning thing is pretty interesting – i’ve never found another pitcher with his amount of games with anything similar) or even just watch him pitch, there’s a lot of rather odd stuff that goes on. the quickness of his implosions are really amazing, too.

free chris getz!

by larry on Nov 20, 2008 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure how pitching well against easy teams and poorly against good teams would skew his ERA/DIPS, though...

Why (and I’m not asking larry here, just thinking out loud) would a good ERA and a bad ERA average out to be worse than what a good and bad DIPS average out to be?

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 20, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs