MVP Redux Discussion Thread

[AstrosFan]

This is for discussion. Voting should be done in the MVP Redux thread.

[philkid3]

Chris's NL ballot looks almost exactly like my original ballot. Awesome!

[AstrosFan]

I don't get Hanley Ramirez for NL MVP. Yes, he was one of the best offensive players in the league while playing shortstop, but he was a terrible defensive shortstop. David Wright created more runs above average, by my measures, than Ramirez, and probably had more defensive value, given that he was a very good defensive third baseman, while Hanley sucked at SS. In fact, just to make my point:

FRAR: Wright 20, Ramirez 13
FRAA: Wright 5, Ramirez -8

I'm not totally sold on BP's metrics, but just because a guy plays shortstop does not automatically make him more valuable defensively.

I think people might find it hard to vote for Wright when his team collapsed down the stretch. But Wright was by far the best player for the Mets in that stretch, and hit about .400 in September. He wasn't perfect, but he certainly didn't choke.

[philkid3]

Their WARP is fairly close, and in that instance I'm going to lean towards the offense. I don't have a problem with Wright, though. It was very close between those two and Pujols for me.

[AstrosFan]

Okay, but Wright was a better offensive player than Ramirez.

[leecemark]

I don't get Hanley Ramirez for NL MVP. Yes, he was one of the best offensive players in the league while playing shortstop, but he was a terrible defensive shortstop. David Wright created more runs above average, by my measures, than Ramirez, and probably had more defensive value, given that he was a very good defensive third baseman, while Hanley sucked at SS. In fact, just to make my point:

FRAR: Wright 20, Ramirez 13
FRAA: Wright 5, Ramirez -8

I'm not totally sold on BP's metrics, but just because a guy plays shortstop does not automatically make him more valuable defensively.

I think people might find it hard to vote for Wright when his team collapsed down the stretch. But Wright was by far the best player for the Mets in that stretch, and hit about .400 in September. He wasn't perfect, but he certainly didn't choke.

--You can be worse than the average SS and better than the average 3B. FRAA only compares you to others at your position. Most SS are better defenders than almost all 3B.

[philkid3]

Okay, but Wright was a better offensive player than Ramirez.

Relative to the value of his position he wasn't.

[AstrosFan]

--You can be worse than the average SS and better than the average 3B. FRAA only compares you to others at your position. Most SS are better defenders than almost all 3B.

According to BP, they set the average SS at 33 fielding runs above replacement, the average 3B at 22 FRAR.

So, for Wright, that's 22+5 = 27.

For Ramirez, that's 33-8 = 25.

Wright is still ahead.

***

As for the whole Wright was better relative to his position, that's a matter for the positional adjustments argument. I've tried out the positional adjustments, and I just can't support them. Give defensive credit for position, but not offensive.

[philkid3]

When it comes to value I think positional adjustments make the most sense in the world. Offense is more valuable at some positions than others.

Now you know why people vote for Hanley. If you don't give position adjustments, why do you have him third?

[AstrosFan]

Because he's a damn good hitter, and he is a SS, which has defensive value.

It didn't matter what position Hanley played last year; he would be the same offensive player regardless. The only difference is we usually see the small, quick guys at SS, and usually the big strong hitters at 1B, the two extremes outside of catcher. A 1B who is being compared to other first basemen is being compared to better hitters. If you're going to adjust Hanley up for the averages at his position, you have to adjust him back down because those averages are created only by him being compared to weak hitters. They don't hit poorly because they play SS. In the end, it all evens out, and what you're left with is comparing everybody to a league average.

[philkid3]

It didn't matter what position Hanley played last year; he would be the same offensive player regardless.

Yes, he would have. But the value of that offense to the team would have changed. If you play him at shortstop with an average first baseman you will have more offense than if you play him at first with an average shortstop.

The only difference is we usually see the small, quick guys at SS, and usually the big strong hitters at 1B, the two extremes outside of catcher. A 1B who is being compared to other first basemen is being compared to better hitters.

Exactly, that's where the value comes form.

If you're going to adjust Hanley up for the averages at his position, you have to adjust him back down because those averages are created only by him being compared to weak hitters. They don't hit poorly because they play SS. In the end, it all evens out, and what you're left with is comparing everybody to a league average.

I don't get this. If you adjust him up because of how poor other shortstops are you have to then adjust him down for how poor other shortstops are?


Hanley Ramirez was worth 90 runs more than a replacement level shortstop would be. It's harder to find a guy who can put up good offense and play shortstop than it is at other positions, and he put up great offense.

Agree or disagree, you should now understand why Hanley is getting the votes.

[AstrosFan]

Shortstops don't hit worse because they play shortstop, they hit worse because they are worse hitters. It's the same reason we adjust Honus Wagner down after we do all the league average calculations. He played against weak competition. A player should only be given positional adjustments if his position has an adverse effect on his offense, and that only holds true for catchers. You don't deserve to get a boost just because the average player at your position simply isn't a good hitter. It's just better if you ignore positional adjustments, with the exception of catcher.

[philkid3]

There's a reason shortstops are worse hitters. People who can hit well are rare. People who can play shortstop are rare. People who can do both are more rare than either. So a shortstop who hits well is very valuable.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Chris's NL ballot looks almost exactly like my original ballot. Awesome!

You had a solid list, then you went soft and changed it.

[philkid3]

I think the only thing I changed was that I dropped Peavy.