Post Your Top 3 AL/NL MVP/CYA - End of August

[rmilia1]

Not if we're talking apples to apples and comparing consistent dominant starters with consistent dominant relievers.... unless you started turning good starters into closers which would be a stupid waste of talent and brings me to the most compelling piece of evidence. There's a reason great starters make about twice what great relievers do. They're much harder to come by and much more valuable. It bugs me when a reliever even wins a CYA much less an MVP.

You guys are misunderstanding what Im saying. Im not saying great starters arent better pitchers. Im saying theyre not as valuable to a teams ultimate success. We are talking about VALUE in this thread and a guy that gies 58 out of 58 on saves is more valuable than a guy who goes 19-5 with a 2.25 ERA. I will admit that because I only believe a MVP should come from a playoff team that my opinion is skewed because a dominant great closer is clearly far more valuable to a great team because a bad team doesnt have as many leads, I get that. Thats also why I dont think a guy that has a great year for a 79-83 team should win MVP either.

 

[Wazmankg]

You guys are misunderstanding what Im saying. Im not saying great starters arent better pitchers. Im saying theyre not as valuable to a teams ultimate success. We are talking about VALUE in this thread and a guy that gies 58 out of 58 on saves is more valuable than a guy who goes 19-5 with a 2.25 ERA. I will admit that because I only believe a MVP should come from a playoff team that my opinion is skewed because a dominant great closer is clearly far more valuable to a great team because a bad team doesnt have as many leads, I get that. Thats also why I dont think a guy that has a great year for a 79-83 team should win MVP either.

I know and you know what ? MLB has figured out a way to measure and reward value. They do it with money. The best starters make roughly twice that of the best relievers. If that doesn't answer the "who's more valuable" question then I don't know what else to tell you. Apologies for the snark. I love your trolls in the PF, but this isn't even an arguable point amongst serious observers of the game... and I don't consider myself one, fwiw.

 

[rmilia1]

I know and you know what ? MLB has figured out a way to measure and reward value. They do it with money. The best starters make roughly twice that of the best relievers. If that doesn't answer the "who's more valuable" question then I don't know what else to tell you. Apologies for the snark. I love your trolls in the PF, but this isn't even an arguable point amongst serious observers of the game... and I don't consider myself one, fwiw.

While I see what you are saying I am talking about value to playoff teams ( which are the only type of teams I think an MVP should come from )... you guys are making an argument for the BEST player, I am making an argument for the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER. Maybe it is simply a difference in opinion on what the MVP trophy means. There is a 0% chance that a guy that plays every 5 days should EVER win the MVP. EVER. A closer at least may play 2 out of every 5 games or slightly more. If you think the MVP should go to the best player every year then Mike Trout will win it the next 12 years because even when he doesnt have quite as good a year as another guy he will still undeniably be the better player overrall.

 

[rmilia1]

Being the best player in the league on a bad or average team is equivalent to Bill Gates having all of his money with him while stranded on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean. Sure he still has the money but it has NO VALUE. Thats about the best abalogy I could come up with to explain what Im saying

 

[Villain]

Fair enough.

I mean, it's probably fine. That's why I was hiding behind the wall. Honestly I don't trust much on relievers beyond K%, BB%, batted-ball velocity, and all those groundball/flyball/homerun measurements. FIP and BABIP are good together too, but the sample sizes are always so tiny with relievers. Even SIERA is limited that way.

Relievers are really tough to grade objectively.

 

[DragonfromTO]

While I see what you are saying I am talking about value to playoff teams ( which are the only type of teams I think an MVP should come from )... you guys are making an argument for the BEST player, I am making an argument for the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER. Maybe it is simply a difference in opinion on what the MVP trophy means. There is a 0% chance that a guy that plays every 5 days should EVER win the MVP. EVER. A closer at least may play 2 out of every 5 games or slightly more. If you think the MVP should go to the best player every year then Mike Trout will win it the next 12 years because even when he doesnt have quite as good a year as another guy he will still undeniably be the better player overrall.

And even when he does have a better year than another guy he'd better hope that his 24 teammates also have good years so that his team doesn't barely miss the playoffs?

 

[Villain]

While I see what you are saying I am talking about value to playoff teams ( which are the only type of teams I think an MVP should come from )... you guys are making an argument for the BEST player, I am making an argument for the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER. Maybe it is simply a difference in opinion on what the MVP trophy means. There is a 0% chance that a guy that plays every 5 days should EVER win the MVP. EVER. A closer at least may play 2 out of every 5 games or slightly more. If you think the MVP should go to the best player every year then Mike Trout will win it the next 12 years because even when he doesnt have quite as good a year as another guy he will still undeniably be the better player overrall.

A starting pitcher is involved in about as many plays per season as any position player that isn't a catcher or first baseman. Sometimes an outfield goes an entire game without making a catch (Mike Trout made 383 put-outs in 2014. In 149 games, that's about 2.6 put-outs per game).

Mike Trout had 705 Plate Appearances in 2014. Ian Kinsler had the most PAs with 726.

Clayton Kershaw faced 749 batters. Felix Hernandez faced over 900 batters. David Price led baseball by facing over 1000 batters.

Now, I'm a huge proponent of defensive value. I think quality baserunning (not just base stealing) is very, very important. I think those two things absolutely deserve consideration when considering a player's total value. BUT! I think everyone would agree that the very first place you start when deciding a player's value is in PITCHER VERSUS BATTER.

Want to talk about how good a shortstop or first baseman is? First question: How well does he hit?
Want to talk about how good a starting or relief pitcher is? First question: How well does he pitch?

Therefore, the starting point in considering a player's value to a team is not how many days in a week he plays, instead it should be "how many pitcher versus batter situations is he involved with in a season?"

If those numbers are pretty close to the same (650+), then you can consider either one of having equal importance in the outcome of a team's overrall success.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Being the best player in the league on a bad or average team is equivalent to Bill Gates having all of his money with him while stranded on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean. Sure he still has the money but it has NO VALUE. Thats about the best abalogy I could come up with to explain what Im saying

I'm pretty sure that everyone understands the argument you're trying to make, it's not a new one that's never been made before.

 

[rmilia1]

And even when he does have a better year than another guy he'd better hope that his 24 teammates also have good years so that his team doesn't barely miss the playoffs?

Pretty much yeah. My definition of valuable means that that value amounts to something. Going 80-82 is no different than going 60-102... it just isnt. If you want to change the name of the award and take Valuable out of it then I am on board with what you guys are saying but otherwise Im out

 

[rmilia1]

A starting pitcher is involved in about as many plays per season as any position player that isn't a catcher or first baseman. Sometimes an outfield goes an entire game without making a catch (Mike Trout made 383 put-outs in 2014. In 149 games, that's about 2.6 put-outs per game).

Mike Trout had 705 Plate Appearances in 2014. Ian Kinsler had the most PAs with 726.

Clayton Kershaw faced 749 batters. Felix Hernandez faced over 900 batters. David Price led baseball by facing over 1000 batters.

Now, I'm a huge proponent of defensive value. I think quality baserunning (not just base stealing) is very, very important. I think those two things absolutely deserve consideration when considering a player's total value. BUT! I think everyone would agree that the very first place you start when deciding a player's value is in PITCHER VERSUS BATTER.

Want to talk about how good a shortstop or first baseman is? First question: How well does he hit?
Want to talk about how good a starting or relief pitcher is? First question: How well does he pitch?

Therefore, the starting point in considering a player's value to a team is not how many days in a week he plays, instead it should be "how many pitcher versus batter situations is he involved with in a season?"

If those numbers are pretty close to the same (650+), then you can consider either one of having equal importance in the outcome of a team's overrall success.

View attachment 26464

Sure.... still only directly correlates to his having an effect on 1/5 of his teams game. Just the way it is

 

[rmilia1]

I'm pretty sure that everyone understands the argument you're trying to make, it's not a new one that's never been made before.

Cool then its just a difference of opinion. I can deal with that

 

[DragonfromTO]

Pretty much yeah. My definition of valuable means that that value amounts to something. Going 80-82 is no different than going 60-102... it just isnt. If you want to change the name of the award and take Valuable out of it then I am on board with what you guys are saying but otherwise Im out

Just double checking... this is still an individual award we're talking about, right? It's not a team award?

 

[DragonfromTO]

Sure.... still only directly correlates to his having an effect on 1/5 of his teams game. Just the way it is

Similarly speaking, does a pinch hitter who bats in every game have more of an impact than a guy who starts and plays entire games but sits once a week?

 

[Villain]

Sure.... still only directly correlates to his having an effect on 1/5 of his teams game. Just the way it is

And a hitter is only having an effect on 1/9 of the lineup.

 

[rmilia1]

Just double checking... this is still an individual award we're talking about, right? It's not a team award?

It is but its about value, you cant have value in something that amounted to nothing.

 

[rmilia1]

And a hitter is only having an effect on 1/9 of the lineup.

Yep and whatever plays he is involved in on the field as well. Except he can have a direct impact on far more games than a starter can

 

[rmilia1]

Similarly speaking, does a pinch hitter who bats in every game have more of an impact than a guy who starts and plays entire games but sits once a week?[/QUOTE

Id say it depends on what he does in those at bats BUT if he is only hitting then you cant really compete with guys who are playing defense as well. Its why its tough for a DH to win the MVP.

 

[Villain]

Yep and whatever plays he is involved in on the field as well. Except he can have a direct impact on far more games than a starter can

I already addressed the on-the-field thing. Trout averaged less than 3 of those per game last year.

So a whole 10-12 chances on average between a given pitcher's turn to start. Big whoop. Not saying that's worthless, just saying that it shouldn't be the deciding point to eliminate starting pitchers for consideration as being the most valuable payer on a team.

 

[rmilia1]

I already addressed the on-the-field thing. Trout averaged less than 3 of those per game last year.

So a whole 10-12 chances on average between a given pitcher's turn to start. Big whoop. Not saying that's worthless, just saying that it shouldn't be the deciding point to eliminate starting pitchers for consideration as being the most valuable payer on a team.

Its cool man, just my opinion. People can see it differently if they want. No biggie

 

[Villain]

Its cool man, just my opinion. People can see it differently if they want. No biggie

Yeah, I know. In my opinion, your opinion is wrong. Not like I'm mad at you.