MLB 2016

[MerrittsMustache]

So Trout is punished because the team around him is worse?  In an sport that is pretty much a series of individual battles, I don't understand why the team's performance would matter.  I understand that line of thinking more in basketball and football which is much more of a team game.

It really depends on if you view the MVP as being "the best player" or if you feel it should go to the player "most valuable to his team."

The Angels won 74 games with the best player in baseball. Without Trout, they win maybe 65-70? IOW, they're still bad. Replace Mookie Betts with a league-average player and the Red Sox likely miss the playoffs. That's a much more significant difference. All things considered, Trout is a better player than Betts, but Betts' value carried a greater significance this season.

[GGGG]

It really depends on if you view the MVP as being "the best player" or if you feel it should go to the player "most valuable to his team."

The Angels won 74 games with the best player in baseball. Without Trout, they win maybe 65-70? IOW, they're still bad. Replace Mookie Betts with a league-average player and the Red Sox likely miss the playoffs. That's a much more significant difference. All things considered, Trout is a better player than Betts, but Betts' value carried a greater significance this season.

Isn't the player with the highest WAR by definition the most valuable then?  Trout is 10.6 v. Betts 9.6.

Again the "missing playoffs" is because there are other players on the team.  Not just Betts.

[MerrittsMustache]

Isn't the player with the highest WAR by definition the most valuable then?  Trout is 10.6 v. Betts 9.6.

Again the "missing playoffs" is because there are other players on the team.  Not just Betts.

So should the MVP just go to the player in each league with the highest WAR, like winning the batting title?

[Lennys Tap]

Isn't the player with the highest WAR by definition the most valuable then?  Trout is 10.6 v. Betts 9.6.

Again the "missing playoffs" is because there are other players on the team.  Not just Betts.

There is a very large "value" difference in winning your division vs not making the playoffs (Boston). Going from bad (74 wins) to worse (63 wins) (Angels) is actually a positive as you move up in the draft.

So Boston's season is ruined if a replacement player (or someone near there) takes Betts's place. The Angels, on the other hand, would have been better off had Trout taken the year off.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Unreal.  Britton gave up 1 dinger all year and had the highest gb rate in history.

At least Britton will be rested up for the next game.

Terrible decision on Showalter's part.  Britton could have gone two innings.  Extend the game and give your offense another chance to score.  You still have Ubaldo available if necessary. 

[🏀]

Cy Young votes no doubt.  But to win it?  No way. 

Also Baseball Reference has Fernandez as a 4.2 WAR.

1.   Scherzer (WSN)   6.2
2.   Cueto (SFG)   5.6
        Kershaw (LAD)   5.6
4.   Roark (WSN)   5.5
5.   Martinez (STL)   5.4
6.   Lester (CHC)   5.3
7.   Syndergaard (NYM)   5.3
8.   Bumgarner (SFG)   5.0
9.   Hendricks (CHC)   5.0
10.   Teheran (ATL)   4.8

Fangraphs WAR is the Supreme Leader of WAR.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I wouldn't complain if Trout got the MVP.  If the award was Most Outstanding Player, then I would give Trout the edge.  But Betts had very similar stats.  Combined with winning, I think the voters will favor Betts.

Lenny and MM summed up my point very well. 

[MU82]

Trout this year was the second person in history to over 120 R,115 BB, 30 SB and hit .315.  The only other player to accomplish those numbers was Ty Cobb. 

I've never liked these "stat combo" accolades. Why would a player with Trout's combination be any more special than somebody who had 123 runs, 109 BB, 32 SB and hit .301? The round-figure versions of stat-combos are bad enough ... but 115 walks? Can't get much more arbitrary than that. I mean, if he only had 114 walks, would he have been some kind of slacker?

And I'm not picking on Trout (or you, because, as you said, you just got that stat combo from another source). I laughed when I heard that Nic Batum was one of only three NBA players to average 14.5 points, 6 rebounds and 5.5 assists last season. Um ... so?

Trout doesn't need such silly stat-combo references to be known as great. I agree he is the best player in baseball. If I had an MVP vote, however, I wouldn't make him my No. 1 choice. The award isn't called "Player of the Year" or "Best Player." It is Most VALUABLE Player, and the meaning of "valuable" purposely has been left to each voter to decide.

While Trout didn't play in a game that was meaningful for the Angels since June, Betts and Ortiz got numerous clutch hits for a team that went from borderline being out of the playoffs to taking over a very competitive AL East. They faced different pressure than Trout did, and they came through.

So yes, Trout will be punished by voters for his teammates' crappiness, and I'd argue that it's perfectly "fair" for voters to cast their ballots with that in mind.

[Lennys Tap]

I've never liked these "stat combo" accolades. Why would a player with Trout's combination be any more special than somebody who had 123 runs, 109 BB, 32 SB and hit .301? The round-figure versions of stat-combos are bad enough ... but 115 walks? Can't get much more arbitrary than that. I mean, if he only had 114 walks, would he have been some kind of slacker?

And I'm not picking on Trout (or you, because, as you said, you just got that stat combo from another source). I laughed when I heard that Nic Batum was one of only three NBA players to average 14.5 points, 6 rebounds and 5.5 assists last season. Um ... so?

Trout doesn't need such silly stat-combo references to be known as great. I agree he is the best player in baseball. If I had an MVP vote, however, I wouldn't make him my No. 1 choice. The award isn't called "Player of the Year" or "Best Player." It is Most VALUABLE Player, and the meaning of "valuable" purposely has been left to each voter to decide.

While Trout didn't play in a game that was meaningful for the Angels since June, Betts and Ortiz got numerous clutch hits for a team that went from borderline being out of the playoffs to taking over a very competitive AL East. They faced different pressure than Trout did, and they came through.

So yes, Trout will be punished by voters for his teammates' crappiness, and I'd argue that it's perfectly "fair" for voters to cast their ballots with that in mind.

Pay the man, Shirley.

[MerrittsMustache]

I've never liked these "stat combo" accolades. Why would a player with Trout's combination be any more special than somebody who had 123 runs, 109 BB, 32 SB and hit .301? The round-figure versions of stat-combos are bad enough ... but 115 walks? Can't get much more arbitrary than that. I mean, if he only had 114 walks, would he have been some kind of slacker?

And I'm not picking on Trout (or you, because, as you said, you just got that stat combo from another source). I laughed when I heard that Nic Batum was one of only three NBA players to average 14.5 points, 6 rebounds and 5.5 assists last season. Um ... so?

Trout would be hot garbage if he drew less than 107 BB!

I always enjoy the "stat combos" when they make a big deal out of a guy being only the 4th player ever to join that exclusive club!!! With the other players being Hank Aaron!...Tito Landrum and Sixto Lezcano.

[wadesworld]

It's a shame that Jonathan Villar didn't get his 20th home run.  He missed out on a chance to be the 3rd ever player in MLB history to hit 20 home runs and steal 60 bases in one season.  Now he's just the 3rd ever to hit 19 home runs with 60 stolen bases.  (I actually don't know that as fact.  Maybe there are tons of people who got 19+ homers and 60+ steals but can't get that elusive 20th home run.)

[brandx]

Fangraphs WAR is the Supreme Leader of WAR.

easily explained.

Fangraphs may be the best baseball website in existence. I check it every single day.

[GGGG]

There is a very large "value" difference in winning your division vs not making the playoffs (Boston). Going from bad (74 wins) to worse (63 wins) (Angels) is actually a positive as you move up in the draft.

So Boston's season is ruined if a replacement player (or someone near there) takes Betts's place. The Angels, on the other hand, would have been better off had Trout taken the year off.

So again, Betts is rewarded because his teammates are better.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

So again, Betts is rewarded because his teammates are better.

Their numbers are almost identical.  Recent precedent leads me to believe that yes, Betts will get that benefit.

[GGGG]

Their numbers are almost identical.  Recent precedent leads me to believe that yes, Betts will get that benefit.

He undoubtedly will.  The question is...should he?

I think the best argument is the clutch situations that Betts faced, but the question is did he actually perform better in those situations? 

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

He undoubtedly will.  The question is...should he?

Voters are allowed to use their own criteria.  In 1991, Cal Ripken was AL MVP on a 67-95 Orioles team.

Trout winning MVP wouldn't be unprecedented.  But it seems winning is a bigger factor in recent years than it was 25 years ago.

[MerrittsMustache]

So again, Betts is rewarded because his teammates are better.

Yes. His teammates were better and his team was better. Therefore, Betts' numbers "mattered more," for lack of a better phrase.  Trout's numbers, though incredible, aren't as "valuable" because his teammates were bad. Is that Trout's fault? No, but that's how it works.

Like I asked before, should the MVP be like a batting title and just go to the player with the highest WAR?

[GGGG]

Yes. His teammates were better and his team was better. Therefore, Betts' numbers "mattered more," for lack of a better phrase.  Trout's numbers, though incredible, aren't as "valuable" because his teammates were bad. Is that Trout's fault? No, but that's how it works.

MVP = player with the best season.  Really how is Betts more "valuable" than Trout?  Because his team was better?

That's nonsense.

Like I asked before, should the MVP be like a batting title and just go to the player with the highest WAR?

That's where it should always start and usually end.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

MVP = player with the best season.  Really how is Betts more "valuable" than Trout?  Because his team was better?

That's nonsense.

So your opinion is that winning doesn't matter.  That is fine.  But the term "most valuable" is vague.  Voters can vote using whatever criteria they want and aren't even required to justify it.  My prediction is that the voters will take winning into account.  If Trout had a year that much better than every other player, I think he'd win easily.  But Betts has virtually identical numbers, therefore I think winning will be the tiebreaker.

That's where it should always start and usually end.

So you want to change the procedure?  No vote, just crown the WAR leader.  Now, who's algorithm are we using?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

MadBum vs Thor should be a great one tonight. If I'm the Cubs I am hoping that Syndergaard and the Mets pull it out.

[wadesworld]

MadBum vs Thor should be a great one tonight. If I'm the Cubs I am hoping that Syndergaard and the Mets pull it out.

Yes and yes.  Wish the Mets staff was healthy.  They were incredible to watch in the Playoffs last year.

Wish the Indians staff was healthy as well.

[GGGG]

So you want to change the procedure?  No vote, just crown the WAR leader.  Now, who's algorithm are we using?

Never said that.  Nice try.

[naginiF]

Yes and yes.  Wish the Mets staff was healthy.  They were incredible to watch in the Playoffs last year.

Wish the Indians staff was healthy as well.

+1,000 (as a Royals fan).

Watching this matchup is like the last 2 years anxiety crammed into one night. 

[buckchuckler]

Never said that.  Nice try.

What exactly are you tyring to say?  Someone stated their opinion that Betts would be MVP and you are disagreeing.  They made the point that being in contention matters, like it or not that is usually true.  It seems like you are just arguing to argue.

[GGGG]

What exactly are you tyring to say?  Someone stated their opinion that Betts would be MVP and you are disagreeing.  They made the point that being in contention matters, like it or not that is usually true.  It seems like you are just arguing to argue.

I don't think being in contention should matter.  I find their arguments lacking. 

Was that difficult for you to understand?