I’m just trying to throw a little logic in the discussion. I’m actually ok (well, I’ve just stopped fighting the fight, I guess) with requiring an MVP to come from a playoff team. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the MVP is actually one of the top 25 players in the league, or the best player on his team, or a member of the team for more than half a season (ahem, CC).

I don’t really write articles like this to predict who the BBWAA will pick as their MVP or to persuade them. I’m just hoping to get the point out to fans, so I don’t have to hear about Delgado being MVP at the bar.

If the player’s team doesn’t need to make the playoffs, Albert should win it this year (and wright should have won it in ‘07). If the player’s team DOES need to make the playoffs, Albert should have won it in ‘06. Because the writers are inconsistent, he’s going to be robbed at least twice in 3 years (and he has a decent argument for being the ’07 MVP, as well).

Albert is much, much better than Howard, and had a better season in 2006 (9.57 WPA!!!) than Howard (8.10). Howard had a great season, but not the greatest in the league; he won the award because he hit a few more home runs than albert, and a bunch came in september. Albert deserved the award; he was better all year long, AND his team made the playoffs, which is what makes it so frustrating for cardinals fans (and for albert at the time, I’m sure). Even without adjusting for park factors, Albert was almost full 3 wins better with the bat, and probably 2 with the glove (+25 for albert vs -9 for howard by +/-) over howard in ‘06. Swap the players, and the cardinals don’t make the playoffs in 2006, and the phillies do, easily.

What I think is funny is that the BBWAA think they should be exempt from criticism for their choices. They make an absolutely ridiculous choice, and then make a villain out of the player who they robbed for questioning them? MVP ballots should not be secret. it’s a public award; we should know who the idiots being idiots are. Those people who make MVP’s out of good-but-not-great players like rollins and Howard should have their votes taken away in the future, or at least heavily discounted.

You can certainly address the importance of games along the same lines that WPA addresses the importance of plate appearances — how much does your performance affect your team’s chances of making the playoffs (or of winning the game for WPA). Call it Playoff Probability Added. The “problem” with this approach is that you could award the MVP for a single at-bat — the game-winning hit in a runoff game like the Padres and Rockies played last year, for example. If you’re ok with a one at-bat MVP, fine. But I doubt you are, and I don’t think we really want to go that route.

One BIG problem with with a Playoff Probability Added approach (and with WPA, actually) is that a player can create the situation that makes him look like a hero by playing poorly early in the season. Take Delgado this year — his performance is important right now, but it wouldn’t have been important had he been competent for the first few months. If the Mets were eight games up instead of three and he had a huge second half, we wouldn’t care (sort of like Tex in Anaheim). Doesn’t it seem illogical that Delgado could have been better overall, but less deserving of the MVP? Like someone else said, all Delgado is doing is filling in the hole that he himself dug earlier in the year.

Also, if you count September games as more important, you’re ignoring the contributions of players earlier in the year that put you in the position to compete. All of the little things that Rockies players did in April were hugely important — if one of them didn’t happen, the 20-game win streak would have left the Rockies one game out of the playoffs. I don’t agree that we should take what’s already happened as a given. To say that today’s game is the most important game of the season misses the point.

Thanks for joining the blog and jumping right in on the discussion.

Statistically, it looks like it is worth less to lose a game in April because there are so many games left that your chances are not affected as much in the calculations. However, a loss is indeed a loss, and a loss on day 1 is the same as a loss in game 162. Unless you think that teams can somehow decide they will win more games later in the year to make up for all those losses in April. If that were the case, they could just win them all! In this case, statistics do lie if you take them too literally. Yes, with 2 games left, down 1 game in the standings, a loss statistically is a killer. But in truth, the loss was no less important than the ones in April.