Board 8 > ~MLB Discussion Topic 5~ i hate everything

(+) Yeah! (+)

Stanton also won last year with the sub-.500 Marlins, as the article I linked addresses
---

^^^ And Votto was second!

This you can say shows a trend, but I say more of a so what to how they voted in the past. It shouldn't be that way. The most prestigious award should go to the best player in the league. Not to the "best player on a good team". If you want to also give some award for that fine, but why should that award carry more weight and meaning to it then "Best Player"?
---

I guess I wouldn't think him underserving if he did end up winning it. His numbers speak for themselves. But I also wouldn't fault an MVP voter who looks at some of the intangibles - did this player have to deal with the pressure of a postseason push? did this player even win more games than he lost? - and votes for a position player on a contending team instead.

Yeah, you can look at the raw numbers and be amazed, but there are some intangibles that could and probably will sway people's votes. Is that fair? Maybe not, maybe so.
---

I mean I think the most fair point to be had is that he doesn't play every day - thats a valid point to make. But in this case, I think the jump between deGrom (plus Scherzer and Nola) vs Yelich/Baez/Freeman/Carpenter/Cain/etc is too notable to ignore. If you think deGrom is a better player than Yelich but vote for Yelich anyway for MVP, acknowledging that you are NOT voting for the player who is better, you are saying "deGrom's offense behind him and bullpen was too shitty for me to consider deGrom a more valuable player".

Re: pressure. deGrom has plenty of pressure that no one else has. He has NO run support. His bullpen is a disaster. More than any other pitcher in baseball, he has the pressure that he knows he has to be absolutely PERFECT in order to win games. I forget the exact stat but I believe he leads baseball this year in "being in line for a Win when he leaves the game and then not getting one". His goal is to prevent runs from scoring which he does better than any pitcher - and his games are just as meaningful as any from a competitive point of view. Although we as fans see it as the pressure of a playoff race, they all have the same job to go out there and not give up runs. deGrom has the least room for error of anyone. And yet he's STILL the best pitcher in baseball this year despite that.

re: "did this player win more games than he lost?" - Wins is inherently a team stat, not an individual stat. The MVP is an individual award.
---

deGrom is having the best season I've seen a starting pitcher have in at least 15 years, so that's something

He's certainly more impressive than Kershaw or Verlander when they won their MVPs
---

Further, what is the bigger inhibiting factor to his MVP case?

Is it more his personal W-L record, or is it the fact the Mets are not a playoff team?

Two scenarios:

1. deGrom is still 8-9 with the same other stats, but the Mets are a playoff team (ie, they score absurdly well when any other player pitches but still have horrific offense/bullpen when he goes for whatever reason).

2. deGrom is a 20-game winner (ie the offense and bullpen barely does enough to scrape by for his starts), but the team is still a 75-win team, with all the same other stats.

How much do you think these 2 scenarios changes his odds? Which one is better for him? How do you think it SHOULD be?
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

deGrom is having the best season I've seen a starting pitcher have in at least 15 years, so that's something

He's certainly more impressive than Kershaw or Verlander when they won their MVPs

and yeah to this. He set an MLB all time single season record for most consecutive starts giving up 3 ER or fewer. I believe only one 4-burger. Although I will admit this contains his one shortened start, first start off the DL (or I think he was just DTD and missed 1 start or something), when he was on a 50 pitch limit. He threw 45 pitches in the first inning and didn't give up any runs. There were 20 foul balls hit off him that inning. This doesn't really apply to much besides situational stuff, I just think its absurd.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

deGrom is having the best season I've seen a starting pitcher have in at least 15 years, so that's something

He's certainly more impressive than Kershaw or Verlander when they won their MVPs

no, hes not.
---

probably the latter. Remember, not only are the Mets not a playoff team, they will also finish as a losing team. If winning the MVP on a non-playoff team is rare, winning it as a losing team is even moreso.

Also, out of the pitchers that won MVP, have any been on a non-playoff team? Too lazy to fact check that.

You can say, that's history, so what? But when your trying to figure out what it means to be a "Valuable" player, it just seems evident that team success is a factor that plays into that decision.

And this is true really throughout all sports since the beginning. Is the MVP winner of (insert sport here) ALWAYS the statistically best player? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. It's not an award generated by computers. It's an award voted by people who have the flexibility to be subjective in their opinions.

So does DeGrom hands down deserve the MVP award solely because of his statistical prowess? Not necessarily. That alone has never been the "be all end all" in who wins that award.
---

red13n posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

deGrom is having the best season I've seen a starting pitcher have in at least 15 years, so that's something

He's certainly more impressive than Kershaw or Verlander when they won their MVPs

no, hes not.

deGrom 2018 - 1.78 ERA, 30 G, 202.2 IP, 207 ERA+, 2.05 FIP, 2.68 xFIP, 6.5 H/9, 0.4 HR/9, 2.0 BB/9, 11.2 K/9, 9.1 bWAR, 8.0 fWAR, 8-9

Kershaw 2014 - 1.77 ERA, 27 G, 198.1 IP, 197 ERA+, 1.81 FIP, 2.08 xFIP, 6.3 H/9, 0.4 HR/9, 1.4 BB/9, 10.8 K/9, 7.7 bWAR, 7.6 fWAR, 21-3

I included W-L for the hell but lol.

I said before about deGrom having 2.0 fWAR better than the highest NL position player (Yelich is actually 6.1, so it's 1.9 better SUE ME) vs Kershaw's 0.4 gap, but if we're just talking Kershaw vs deGrom those are the numbers for you.deGrom gave up 3 in 7 in his last start so he went very slightly down from the last time I posted, but he's basically neck and neck with MVP Kershaw there, WL record and team record aside. Kershaw has a solid jump on FIP/xFIP, deGrom's 207 ERA+ is crazy, and he has the WAR stats going for him for whatever that's worth. As of right this second, Kershaw's season is probably slightly better but another 2 great starts could change that.

You add to deGrom's fact that he's way better than the next best candidate and that says MVP to me...

Think about how over the last month+ we went from arguing whether or not he'd win the Cy Young to it basically being a sure thing at this point - a lot of that is Nola/Scherzer falling off a bit while deGrom didn't, but that gap looks relatively like his gap between Yelich for MVP, as far as player quality.

guffguy89 posted...

But when your trying to figure out what it means to be a "Valuable" player, it just seems evident that team success is a factor that plays into that decision.

People love that argument in the NBA when they say stuff like "well even though X is the best player, they'd be just as great without him, so is he really that valuable?". I don't know why it doesn't come up as much in MLB but its the same fallacious way of thinking imo. It shouldn't be perceived as value to that team in particular. It's just value. How much are they worth? How many WINS are they worth? But when Wins are a team effort, you can only look at how much an individual player with those stats influences wins. You will win more games with a player like deGrom on your team than a player like Yelich. That's what WAR is trying to get at.

If you look at team wins you are diluting one player's elements with everyone else's on that team. In that case, the MVP isn't really going to a player, it's going to a team.

MVP voting should be based on statistics. Different statistics have different levels of importance to different people which is where the personality comes in. It shouldn't be by computers because theres no clear definition of what stats are better than others - everyone has their own opinions. But then you should be using stats that are actually reflective of that players performance.

If you define value as "helps their team win games", just because Yelich's team has won more games doesn't mean he was worth more wins. The fact that you can say "This player would win the MVP if he were on Team X but would not win if he were on Team Y" ie "He has more value on Team X, than on Team Y" doesn't make sense. The player has the same value no matter what team he's on. His value is determined by his performance. His value is not determined by his teammates performance.
---

I mean that is all my opinion obviously. You are welcome to have your own definitions of value and how you perceive and the big difference is going to be "The player has the same value no matter what team he's on. His value is determined by his performance. His value is not determined by his teammates performance."

Yelich's pitcher throwing a CG SHO shutout to give his team a win, or his teammate hitting a walkoff home run, again giving his team an extra win, to me, should not add value to Yelich.

I get the idea of wanting to reward a player on a winning team - they were helpful in getting their team to the playoffs. Maybe that is what you call value, and thats fine. I think its more important to highlight the best player period. Is there an award like that? What award do we give to just "The best player in baseball (or at least each league)"?
---

but it's not like baseball is a game full of pitchers. Maybe if it was, this wouldnt be a debate. But Pitchers and hitters are so wildly different that it's very hard to compare them to each other. I know they've come up with metrics now that can supposedly compare both, but it's still different.

You keep on harping on the individuality of the award, but I think the very namesake of the reward speaks not just to individual effort but moreso to individual effort and it's effect on the team.

I mean, Most Valuable Player. Most Valuable....to whom? To the team? To himself? To the League?

The plain facts are that despite having an insanely amazing statistical year, DeGrom has added basically no value to his team from a winning standpoint (8-9 personal record, losing team record). Is that his fault? By far mostly not. However, for him to lose a game means he has to at least give up a run, so technically....
---

Wigs if you look closely, all DeGrom has done is compiled more counting stats in 3 more starts.

He has 3 more starts than Kershaw that year and only 4 more IP.

Hes having a great season, but hes simply not singlehandledly winning games like Kershaw that year. (Kershaw had 6 CG that year).

Don't get me wrong, hes having a great season. But hes not peak Kershaw dominate. Thats not something to be sad about, Kershaw is a pitcher that could retire now and make the HoF for a reason.
---

WiggumFan267 posted...

. Is there an award like that? What award do we give to just "The best player in baseball (or at least each league)"?

He'll get the Cy Young award. Which is not chopped liver.
---

I just want to clarify that I'm not saying MVP is solely about helping your team win. I'm saying it's a factor, with statistical performance still being the biggest factor. I wouldn't feel jilted if he won it, but I definitely don't think his supporters should be jilted if he doesn't. I just like to debate. It's fun.
---

Yes, for sure its hard to compare hitters and pitchers, but I don't think we are in much debate (maybe?) that deGrom is the best player in the NL this year. It's the context of the award. If you think its fair for it to be more team-based thats fine. I don't think of it that way as much. Or think it shouldn't be anyway. Most standalone value is how I see it.

And yeah, Kershaw's 6 CGs that year were stupid good. That alone is enough to do it. The ERA is there with that in Kershaw's year. For the averages, Kershaw was def better, but there is something to counting stats measuring up as well. Having more IP has some meaning. Kershaw was better, and I'd vote for him in that year and actually you have a similar parallel there with Sale/Snell this year. I personally would vote Sale over Snell, but it is a fair point in Snell's favor that he has more games/IP.

And yes I agree these are fun debates! I like this kind of stuff. I don't think anyone, mets fans included, truly expects deGrom to win MVP. There is just a good case for it. Like I won't think he was robbed or anything if he doesn't win, mostly because the opinion differences are too strong.

Actually, the odd thing is with the current field - lots of very strong but no odds-on favorite for the NL MVP among the hitters - while that helps deGrom's chances of WINNING - it also increases his chances of placing lower. Like if there was one clear cut offensive favorite, then a bunch of solid guys, and deGrom , he would be a more likely clear #2, but have 0 chance of winning. But in the current climate, he COULD get #1, but I think it'd be much harder for him to get #2 than in that other scenario.
---

red13n posted...

Wigs if you look closely, all DeGrom has done is compiled more counting stats in 3 more starts.

Playing 3 more starts in itself only emboldens his MVP case imo
---

But if Yellich hits a third cycle or if DeGrom pitches a no hitter sometime before the end of the season, then they'd be pretty much locked XD.
---

I don't see deGrom winning MVP on a really bad Mets team, not really his fault. I know some people think MVP just means "most hypothetical wins based on derived advanced stats" because "wins" are the most valuable thing you can have. I see that point and have some agreement with it... but baseball isn't a sport played in nightly chunks for the sole purpose of piling up aggregate statistics. And to me the MVP award also captures some of the story of the year.

deGrom has had one of the best pitching years we've seen in a while. He's Cy Young and it's robbery if he doesn't win it. I don't have a real opinion on the NL MVP though so if it's deGrom because he's so good, you can overlook the rest of the NL - that's fine.

I'll take Mookie because his lofted swing is better than Trout's plate discipline/3 outcomes style that can be managed around. Trout is a valid MVP name and if he wins, that's fine. I disagree this year (of course I'm biased). I do think there's something to be said for how a guy's personality affects his team but I get that you might want to keep it at Xs and Os.
---

Yes, all valid points. (I also am biased for deGrom obviously). And WAR gets overused sometimes - it's definitely not a be-all end-all metric with its own share of flaws, like every stat. And some degree of intangibles matters - and everyone has their own. deGrom's if anything would be "aw come on don't you feel bad for the guy? Pitches his ass off and doesn't get a win". Not the best horse to ride on.

deGrom goes tonight @ WSH, and one more next week, probably vs Atlanta if they want to keep him on normal rest (since he's been slightly worse generally with an extra day). It's too bad the rain delay last week denied him one extra start but it's not like he's going for a milestone counting stat or anything.
---

BTW - fuck addison russell
---

Oh wow, I'm shocked to hear about Russell. He always looks so mild mannered at the plate/in the field, at least the handful of times I've seen him play.
---