Board 8 > ~MLB Official Discussion Topic 5: Playoffs!?~

(+) Yeah! (+)

tazzyboyishere posted...

Also, we're apparently starting Lester, which I disagree with (Should be Hendricks). Think we should win this, though. Just need the offense to stop flubbing key games.

That would be 3 days rest for Hendricks?
---

hmm, who do I want to win tonight?

As a Brewer fan with personal grudges, there would be some satisfaction to seeing the Cubs get knocked out here, but as a baseball fan, facing the Cubs in the Division Series would unarguably be the more entertaining baseball. And maybe, the better bet for us. While I feel the Cubs are a better team than the Rockies, the Brewers are really familiar with the Cubs...and we've had their number lately. Yes, Cubs won the season series 11-8, but most of those wins were early in the season. Brewers have dominated the second half of our encounters. Both the Brewers and Cubs match up really well together (hence the close games), but I feel the Brewers have gained a slight advantage in a few areas (bullpen and timely hitting) that makes me feel like we can beat these guys.

The Rockies on the other hand have been scoring runs like nobody's business. They are a dangerous team and a bit of an unknown quantity. And playing in their ballpark is no picnic. But even so, they are the overall less threatening team of the two.

I'm not sure yet who I want to win, but I know who I will be rooting against!

Prediction: Cubs 5, Rockies 3
---

I think we can all agree that we've had enough of the Cubs. Go Rockies.
---

I'd love to see the Rockies win, but I also expect the Cubs to beat them

Anyway, just confirmed that Severino will start tomorrow night for the Yankees. His amazing first half is a big part of the Yankees success this year. Hopefully this year's Wild Card game start goes smoother than last year.
---

Severino to start against the A's

I appreciate the long-term strategy, but I really do not trust Sevy at this point
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

I think we can all agree that we've had enough of the Cubs. Go Rockies.

Your thinking is objectively incorrect
---

Prediction: Rockies 6 - Cubs 0

This month (and team) has made me pretty pessimistic about the Cubs chances.

But man do I hope I'm wrong.
---

When this Severino gamble fails, it will be one of the bigger sticks I use to bludgeon you Girardi haters with.

Why trade for Happ, see how effective he is, and then leave him in the chamber?
---

ExThaNemesis posted...

When this Severino gamble fails, it will be one of the bigger sticks I use to bludgeon you Girardi haters with.

Why trade for Happ, see how effective he is, and then leave him in the chamber?

They are hoping Sev does well, uplifts his confidence for the rest of the postseason (he's definitely a momentum kind of guy for better or worse), and Happ the Boston Strangler will start game 1 and get us off to a 1-0 series lead.

It's a pretty big gamble, but at least there's some logic to it.
---

The Cubs will either be shut out or win 8-1.
---

If you're into umpire fun; Adrian Johnson will be manning home Plate Game 1 of Dodgers/Braves with Tom "Ass In The Jackpot" Hallion at 3rd.

Jim Wolf is your AL WCG Home Plate umpire (of Toronto Batter Interference fame), and everyone's favorite Angel Hernandez is at 3rd for Game 1 of Red Sox vs Yanks/A's.

Here's everyone:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DohOQx9UcAAPKKl.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DohOQx9U8AEShAH.jpg
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

They are hoping Sev does well, uplifts his confidence for the rest of the postseason (he's definitely a momentum kind of guy for better or worse), and Happ the Boston Strangler will start game 1 and get us off to a 1-0 series lead.

It's a pretty big gamble, but at least there's some logic to it.

I don't really disagree with the logic, I just think there's a problem with looking ahead too much.

There is no "ahead" if you don't win the game against Oakland.
---

Agreed. I am going to need booze tomorrow.
---

The Cubs will either lose the WC game or win the World Series. That's my only prediction for the playoffs.
---

i'm okay with Severino if they basically have him pitch like he's in the bullpen. 2-3 innings, one time through the order. otherwise i'd rather have Tanaka.

Happ should be used against the Red Sox either way.
---

One more deGrom MVP article 'by the way', though this is more of a "why he shouldn't not win" look than a "why he should win" look. Basically more of the argument that MVP really should just be "best player", but it already kind of dictates that in its definition. It's not the most compelling article for making a case for him, but it makes good points on the MVP award as a whole.

Notably the last 2 paragraphs:

"Imagine that baseball had no awards. Imagine that you were in charge of creating them. Whats the very first award you create? Whats the most important award you create? Its the best-player award. Of course its the best-player award. Its not the best-player-on-a-team-that-makes-the-playoffs award. Its not the best-player-on-a-team-that-makes-the-playoffs-but-only-just-barely award. Its not the best-player-on-a-team-that-makes-the-playoffs-and theres-not-another-really-great-player-on-the-same-roster award. You create an award that looks to recognize the best player. Baseball has such an award. Its the highest-profile award given by the BBWAA. You can definitely overthink it, and over the course of several decades its turned into something extremely overthought. Its turned into something other than what I have to imagine was the original intent. Sometimes I dont even know what voters are arguing about anymore. I understand how we got to this place, but we dont need to stay here.

They say its the most-valuable-player award, not simply the best-player award. The most valuable player is the best player, according to the only intent that makes good sense. Even by these simplified criteria, theres still infinite room to argue. There are statistical error bars everywhere, and its not like the conversation becomes less fun. Rather, I think it becomes more fun and engaging, because at least wed all be trying to answer the same core question. In my opinion, this season, Jacob deGrom was the best overall player in the National League. Therefore, hed get my vote for the NL MVP. Its a vote that I dont have, but its a vote I would give him with my full and total confidence."

plus, listing excerpts directly from the MVP voting form:

One, the first listed rule:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

Two, from the first paragraph:

The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

Three, the last line:

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

with special attention to that first point.
---

Degrom gets the best pitcher award. Degrom's pitching performance had no value because none of the Mets wins were worth anything. No one cared if they won or lost, there was no value to be gained(Hell, winning was counterproductive this season for them, as it was for most teams).
---

That's not what Value means. Value means best player.

The first rule of the MVP voting says this.

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
---

Also I realize I completely forgot to link the article WOOPS

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jacob-degrom-for-nl-mvp/
---

The MVP is an individual award, given to an individual player. Docking (or awarding) a player points for what his teammates do would mean you taking the player's individual performance out of it, and distributing it with his teammates, a team award. But the MVP isn't given to a team. It's given to a single player. The first rule explicitly defines value as "Stength of offense and defense". The voter ballot does say its left open to your interpretation of who actually is "Most Valuable" but it goes on to define a clear version of what value is.

And logically, why would you want to prioritize an award for "best from a playoff team". Why does no one want to give an award for "Best Overall Player"? If you think Yelich was a better overall player in 2018 than deGrom, that's fine. There's cases for both of them. But I hate that an award given for a Single Players value is affected by what his teammates do and things entirely out of his control. That is a dumb way to give an individual award.
---

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

That sounds open to a lot of subjective interpretation. If it is meant to be just the purely statistically best player and absolutely nothing else, this is a really odd and vague way of stating it.

Also, I like how you keep on harping on the individuality of the award when the first rule is "value of a player TO HIS TEAM"
---

The subjectivity comes in singular player evaluation. Not in how good his team is. There is no clear-cut "best statistical player" because there is no be-all end-all stat that says this. WAR tries, but its not nearly good enough, and flawed.

The whole award is based around subjective interpretation, but it is ONLY for deciding who provides more "strength of offense and defense". Not a voter's subjective definition of the word "value"

Maybe one VALUES extra base hits more, and maybe some one else values stolen bases and defense more, and someone else values ERA more to a player's overall worth. That's all fine, and where everyone's unique opinions come into play. But it needs to be clear cut exactly what they the category is they are trying to vote on.

And yes, to his team. So? His "strength of offense" doesn't change depending on the team that is receiving it. It's the same amount of offense or defense.
---

Here is the full text of the form

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 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

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

---

And this is where I go back to the pressure of a postseason run. Oh yes, we all know the pitiful run support DeGrom got and what kind of pressure that put him under each time he pitched. But in my opinion, that kind of pressure does not come close to the pressure of having to perform in key situations to win games and get your team to the postseason. Talk about a double combo of statistical prowess and value to your team's success.

Obviously, being on a winning team is not a prerequisite, you need to have that foundation of statistical prowess to even beging being considered for the award, but being able to execute under that pressure is definitely a factor into the makeup of an MVP that voters consider, and I believe rightly so.
---

So under what circumstances could someone from a non-playoff team ever win then in your opinion, what would it have to take? If you are insisting on the team's performance mattering, then do you have this scenario? How could Stanton win last year for the 77-win Marlins? His teammates had no success, his team had no success by your definitions. But he still won. What makes Stanton more valuable to the Marlins than deGrom did to the Mets?

As for "pressure". Yes, there is still pressure. At the end of the day, there is pressure for every player to perform well. Players have contracts. As fans, we are blinded to the simple pressure of winning and losing but these are guys fighting for contracts, for jobs. All MLB players are subject to pressure to perform their best every day, no matter what standing their team is in. Maybe there are different levels of pressure, and it might even be different if youre in a playoff race, but the amount every one still feels is still immense. Those differences should not have an effect on "offensive and defensive player value".
---

(FYI The Mets also have 77 wins)
---

Remember we are talking about a pitcher here though. The stats will always be subjectively compared to position players, of which Yellich is first or second in almost every major category. Hit for 2 cycles (rarely done in same season). And came 1 HR and 1 RBI shy of the first triple crown in the NL since the 1930s. How do you compare that to pitching stats? You can't.

When talking about leading your team to the playoffs. It gives an undeniable edge. It's the total package on what it means to bring value to your team. That's all I'm saying.
---

I am hopeful with Stanton winning last year (and Votto in 2nd), that the voters are shifting back more towards best overall player. I think deGrom's pitcher status is a bigger hurdle to get over here, than the fact he comes from a losing team. Because there is an inherent value inequality in pitchers and hitters, and that is definitely difficult to judge and a huge part of that MVP subjectivity, as long as the V is properly defined.

Aside:
[Although, that one you can better examine by looking at At Bats effected instead of just games played or innings played (ie, a pitcher deals with say 25 ABs a game every 5 games, plus defensive chances and a batter deals with 4-5 ABs a game, plus defensive chances... but not arguing this facet of it now lol)]

Un-aside:
Stanton won last year, with Votto 2nd. That's a fact. That's what the voters have collectively decided in 2017 was "the most value". You can disagree of course, but people are voting for him. So what barrier decides when it is "ok" to vote for someone from a losing team? There shouldn't be one, My main point is that isn't it more impactful and meaningful to give an award to "the best player" as opposed to abunch of weird criteria involving teammates? Don't you just want to see "the best player period" get recognized? (On this note, I think there should also be a more publicized "Best Overall Hitter" award, much like there is a Cy Young... there is one, the Hank Aaron award, but its not BBWAA, so no one cares about it).

People have what they want MVP to mean, but it is laid out what it actually means (article mentions this too, but gears it towards pitcher vs hitter). And although it says "to the team", you provide the same value to the team no matter if that teams wins or loses the game. You give your team X more or less chance of winning by putting the performance you did out there.

A pitcher who goes 6 innings and gives up 0 runs but his team loses the game contributed more value to his team than a pitcher who goes 6 innings and gives up 1 run, but his team wins the game anyway.

This is all about the interpretation of value, with the popular belief that a player provides minimal value when his team is out of the hunt. But if you want to look even closer, why not fold in the players salary, too? Is that not a part of the players presence on the roster? You can make a good argument that salary ought to be included, as well, but nobody wants that. What if a player is a particularly good box-office draw? Theres no appetite for this. Nobody wants to have to think about these other factors. So keeping it just on the field, its true that every team is trying to make the playoffs, but its also true that every team is trying to win every game. Every game is of import. Even the Mets games in September mattered.

(I posted this before your post but I will respond to that too just wanted to get this in)
---

This is why the MVP debate would've been very interesting had Yellich not exploded like he did. I feel, and as a Brewer fan maybe this doesn't mean anything, but I feel that Yellich's stats alone make him a worthy MVP top 3 finalist, and a more than worthy winner of it if he does get chosen. I'm not saying Yellich should be chosen solely because he carried this team to the playoffs, I truly believe his stats alone can hold their own. I just think it adds an extra dimension to the consideration.

Had Yellich not done what he did, we would have been stuck with a lot of great, but relatively unamazing options among position players...and then DeGrom. You said yourself Wiggum that if someone comes out as the clear frontrunner DeGrom will probably finish second, but if there is a group of even contenders, DeGrom could take it all. The prior has happened, and I believe your analysis will hold true.
---

guffguy89 posted...

Remember we are talking about a pitcher here though. The stats will always be subjectively compared to position players, of which Yellich is first or second in almost every major category. Hit for 2 cycles (rarely done in same season). And came 1 HR and 1 RBI shy of the first triple crown in the NL since the 1930s. How do you compare that to pitching stats? You can't.

When talking about leading your team to the playoffs. It gives an undeniable edge. It's the total package on what it means to bring value to your team. That's all I'm saying.

Aha but see? Now you are going back to thinking about hitter vs pitcher. I am more ok with that. What I am not ok with is MVP having anything to do with a team's record. Again, like my pitcher example above- I'll do it for a hitter.

Player A hits 3 Home runs in a game but his team loses by 1 run.
Player B hits 2 home runs and his team wins by 1 run.
Player A provided more value - he gave his team more chance to win.

"leading your team to the playoffs" is not an individual thing. An individual does not do this. This is a team effort. And further, you are now strictly trying to tie the award to making the postseason or not, which the award is not about. You did not answer my question.

WiggumFan267 posted...

So under what circumstances could someone from a non-playoff team ever win then in your opinion, what would it have to take? If you are insisting on the team's performance mattering, then do you have this scenario? How could Stanton win last year for the 77-win Marlins? His teammates had no success, his team had no success by your definitions. But he still won. What makes Stanton more valuable to the Marlins than deGrom did to the Mets?

It sounds to me like you are saying "No. The MVP winner absolutely has to come from a playoff team". or "If someone leads their team to the playoffs that basically ensures them MVP". The MVP award does not say that. You are saying what you WANT MVP to be, not what the award is actually detailing. The award does not say a single thing about post-season mattering and goes out of its way to say "don't specifically do this"
---

But Wiggs, you got to look at the history. Yes, last couple years was a big win for non-playoff winning MVPs. But going back to 1995, still less than 10% of winners came from a nonplayoff team, and most of those were at least on winning teams.

It does matter. Or at least it did. Maybe things are changing now.
---

I am welcome to debate the hitter pitcher part if you like. This now gets much more into the opinion realm:
Triple crown is nice. It's still just 3 categories- there are many more important ones besides just Average, RBIs, and Home Runs. Further, winning it or not is not a binary thing as far as MVP. Coming up 1 RBI shy of winning is statistically nearly exactly the same as winning by 1 RBI. Being top 3 in the league in those categories is certainly excellent and that matters a lot. But you can't just have a Triple Crown winner automatically win- that is shortsighted (Trout should've beat Miggy that one year IMO). You are discounting too many other stats by doing so. Stolen bases, Defense, etc. If someone had the triple crown, and another player was just behind him in each category, but was much better defensively, walked a lot more, had more SBs, etc - those aren't stats to ignore. (Also RBIs are overrated in player evaluation imo, but still worth considering to a degree).

How do you compare to pitching stats? deGrom had one of the best pitching seasons anyone has ever had. deGrom prevented runs from scoring at a historical rate. He gave up 3 runs or less in every single start this year but 1. He made it impossible for opposing teams to generate enough runs to win (of course, his bullpen and offense did allow this). Yelich's run creation vs deGrom's run prevention. That's how you try to compare it, and you CAN do it. Saying you can't is lazy and I would certainly hope any MVP voter doesn't say "Well I don't want compare these 2 things, may as well not do it"

That's what it comes down to in the end, because runs are the building blocks of MLB Value. Both were extremely good at it.

guffguy89 posted...

This is why the MVP debate would've been very interesting had Yellich not exploded like he did. I feel, and as a Brewer fan maybe this doesn't mean anything, but I feel that Yellich's stats alone make him a worthy MVP top 3 finalist, and a more than worthy winner of it if he does get chosen. I'm not saying Yellich should be chosen solely because he carried this team to the playoffs, I truly believe his stats alone can hold their own. I just think it adds an extra dimension to the consideration.

Had Yellich not done what he did, we would have been stuck with a lot of great, but relatively unamazing options among position players...and then DeGrom. You said yourself Wiggum that if someone comes out as the clear frontrunner DeGrom will probably finish second, but if there is a group of even contenders, DeGrom could take it all. The prior has happened, and I believe your analysis will hold true.

Yes, I would not be upset if Yelich won, don't get me wrong (I would be disappointed). But I would be upset if he won on the grounds of his team making the playoffs. He had a great September (so did deGrom btw - but he was just super consistently great every single month), and that may very well have put him over the top (especially since there is a September bias). I am sure Yelich WILL win MVP and that his September clinched it. I just hope its on the grounds of his performance and that if he did this for the Marlins a la Stanton, it wouldn't be any different. Me, I still think deGrom was more valuable for having one of the best seasons a pitcher has EVER had since the dead-ball era. He had 27 straight starts giving up 3 runs or less. nobody has EVER done that in 140 years of baseball, INCLUDING the dead-ball era. You can't say something like that for Yelich. Yes, Yelich better helped his team make the playoffs than deGrom did. I'm still saying that's not what the award is asking.
---

guffguy89 posted...

But Wiggs, you got to look at the history. Yes, last couple years was a big win for non-playoff winning MVPs. But going back to 1995, still less than 10% of winners came from a nonplayoff team, and most of those were at least on winning teams.

It does matter. Or at least it did. Maybe things are changing now.

Baseball has changed a ton in the last 4 years, let alone the last 23. Everyone is a power hitter these days. Recency is important. When would you choose to give the award to someone from a non-playoff team over someone from one?
---

I would give the award to someone from a nonplayoff team if there were no suitable candidates from a playoff team, relative to the performance of the individual from the nonplayoff team.

Why do you think no one is talking about Scooter Gennett as a viable candidate? Hes got the stats to be in the discussion, but he was on a losing team, so no one is even considering it.

Also, while eligible, pitchers are rarely chosen for mvp. I went back to the early 90s, and every single pitcher that won MVP since then has been on a playoff team.

That last bit not entirely related to topic at hand, but it would just go to show how rare a degrom MVP would be.
---

Fucking finally
---

So which team wants to choke away the playoffs harder let's see in the 9th
---

The Rockies have been doing their absolute best to let us win. They just aren't bad enough as of yet.
---

tazzyboyishere posted...

The Rockies have been doing their absolute best to let us win. They just aren't bad enough as of yet.

Yep.
---

Scooter Gennett wasnt even the best player on his team.

Suarez is an MVP candidate and should get some votes though, but hes a step below a lot of the other candidates. so... that point is moot. He is "in the discussion" but yelich baez freeman etc were all better players. I think anyway. I'm not 100% sure on Gennetts numbers but why speculate about "whos being talked about". what does that mean? if he deserves it he deserves it. period.

the fact you are only willing to give it to a nonplayoff player by default only if the playoff guys arent to your liking is essentially the same as only giving it to someone on a playoff team. That's against the idea of the rule that says "you dont have to give it to them".

and looking back at the 90s , literally over 18 years ago, is meaningless. i guess you noted that but it doesnt really have anything to do with who should win and what the rules for MVP are and state. generally the best player is going to be on a winning team because having the best player in baseball helps his team win. unless the rest of the team is awful enough it doesnt help.

The rules are clear. People choose to not follow them or make up their own rules or warp the definition of value. I guess thats their perogative but it's a damn shame.

anyway. great game here.
---

oh i shoudlve refreshed sorry i didnt mean to bring this discussion back up lol

i thought the last post was about this my bad
---

ESPN camera angles suck ass

I'm loving the ESPN2 statcast broadcast though. Highly recommend it
---

Cubs players acting like every walk or single is a walk off hit...I mean....it's cool to see players excited, but dude, you drew a bases empty walk...act like you've been here before....or at least save that reaction for something a little more meaningful.
---

guffguy89 posted...

Cubs players acting like every walk or single is a walk off hit...I mean....it's cool to see players excited, but dude, you drew a bases empty walk...act like you've been here before....or at least save that reaction for something a little more meaningful.

Or players could get excited about a successful at-bat and want to inspire their teammates to do the same.
---

lmao I loved the bat flip on the walk tbh

I like when athletes show emotion (as long as its not harmful to the team, Bryce Harper)
---

Forgive guffguy, he doesn't know what playoff baseball is yet.
---

WiggumFan267 posted...

I like when athletes show emotion (as long as its not harmful to the team, Bryce Harper)

Positive emotion is great! Negative emotion is annoying, which is why I'm glad Lackey is gone.
---

Gore is due third and I hope Maddon lets him bat. Not because I think it's a good idea, but because it'd be fucking hilarious if it worked.
---

We might be here a while.
---

Im okay with that. If this game needs to go until tomorrow morning so both teams are exhausted that works for me!

Still, this is what playoff baseball should be. Simply amazing
---

Well there's our gift to Colorado.

Edit: They didn't want it
---