The MVP, the Cy Young, and the All Star Game

Popularity. Isn't that what it all comes down to? When you don't have a method in place, and depend solely on votes from either the public or beat writers, you're going to get opinions that are generally not based entirely on fact or evidence, but on preference. I've posted on this subject on message boards before, but now I think I'll go into it here as well.

The MVP Award.

Just the name gives me chills. Most Valuable Player. It couldn't be "Best" or "Outstanding," but "Valuable." So the subjectivity begins. What is the definition of valuable? A glance at an online dictionary says "of great importance or use or service." Well that settles it. Not really. The great thing about Baseball is there are so many stats, you can just pick and choose which ones to like and which to ignore. The problem becomes which ones should be valued and which ones should be ignored? Yes, some stats are better than others. The world isn't fair. Get over it.

As some of you may know, I follow sabermetric statistics. And as some of you may not know, I follow sabermetric statistics. I'm not great a math, and I've never created a stat, but I trust that guys like MGL and Voros McCracken know what they're talking about. I've read their articles and it makes sense to me. Now, the old schoolers will tell you that only three statistics matter for hitters, and since we're talking about the MVP Award as well as the Cy Young Award, let's focus on hitters for the MVP. The big three stats are batting average, homeruns and runs batted in. Hell, there's an award for just those three (The Triple Crown; last winner Carl Yastrzemski in 1967). Now, I'll admit that leading the league in BA, HR and RBI in the same season is an impressive feat. But there's more to Baseball than just those three stats. Far more.

Batting Average vs On-base Percentage

This one's pretty obvious. Batting average is (Hits / At Bats). Pretty straight forward. But as Crash Davis pointed out in "Bull Durham," one hit a week is all that separates a .250 hitter from a .300 hitter. Nevertheless, the stat has its place. And that place is included in On-base Percentage. On-base Percentage or OBP is (Hits + Walks + Hit By Pitch) divided by (At Bats + Walks + Hit By Pitch + Sacrifice Flies). You can see it in there, can't you? Good class. Now, the most common misconception about OBP is doubters are under the belief that walks replace hits. Not so. Walks replace outs. If you see four balls in one plate apperance, chances are you didn't see a hittable strike. But if you want to claim that a hitter must pass up on at least one "good pitch" to take a walk, then you could do that for every plate appearance of every hitter and die alone.

So why is OBP better than BA? Aside from the fact that OBP includes BA, it adds another dimension to the value of a hitter: purely getting on base. It's funny how many times I've talked about OBP with those who don't believe in the stat. They say "sometimes you need to get a hit, like when a guy is on base." Well, isn't the fact that someone's on base important? Is that guy more valuable because he got a hit instead of a walk? Of course, walks rarely drive in runs. But walked batters are driven in all the time. Trotting to first doesn't seem like a big deal and isn't as sexy as slapping a line drive to the outfield, but Baseball is a boring game. I'll say it again. Getting on base is important.

Homeruns vs Slugging Percentage

Chicks dig the longball. There's nothing more exciting than a guy hitting a 90mph fastball 400 feet. And the greatest moment in the history of sports involves a gimpy southpaw slugging a backdoor slider into the rightfield pavillion to win the game. But is there more to power hitting than the homerun? Souces who have asked not to be identified have informed me that batters can hit for extra bases without hitting a homerun.

Are doubles and triples meaningless? I think not! I, for one, like it when a player puts himself in scoring position. And anyone who doesn't should be flogged with a big freakin' stick. Doubles almost always drive in runs, as do triples. And some hitters are more prone to driving balls into the gaps instead of over the wall. Does that mean that they aren't helping?

But the best part of Slugging Percentage or SLG (TB / AB) is this: it puts the power a batter hits for into context. Two batters hit 20 Homeruns in a season. One did it in 600 at bats, the other did it in 400. Purely evaluating by the total of homeruns would suggest they're equal, but slugging says different. Slugging says the guy who did the same in less time is better. And slugging is right. It's pretty self-evident.

RBI vs Situational Hitting

You probably thought I was going to compare RBI to OPS, but you were wrong! That's not really an accurate or pertinent comparison. OPS is OBP and SLG added together. Anywho, RBI are my least favorite offensive stat. It goes along with the misconception that driving in runs is the most important thing a hitter can do. But more than that, it's often taken out of context and expected of players who hit at the very top of a lineup.

Now, I'll give you an example: Who's better at driving in runs: The guy with 90 RBI or the guy with 83 RBI? Most of you would say "Oh oh! Pick me!" And I'd tell you to shut up because you're talking to a computer screen and I can't hear you. If you managed to yell loud enough for me to hear you say the dude with 90 RBI is better, then I'd laugh at you! Like this! Ha! What if I told you that the guy who had 90 RBI put up an .809 OPS with Runners in Scoring Position? And the guy with 83 RBI put up an OPS of .993 with RISP? Now who's better at driving in runs? Huh? Tough guy?

The bottom line is this: Ask questions. Don't arbitrarily follow something or believe in what your buddies believe in. At first I had no clue what to think about Sabermetrics. Now I'm addicted, like a coke fiend. Put stats into context. Evaluate them. Question the people who provide them. Ask as many questions as you need to. Don't be afraid to look stupid. Don't wear white shoes after Labor Day....

Now back to the topic at hand. What does this have to do with the MVP Award? Very little, since I predicted the winners of the award for last season without looking too hard at their stats. After all, it's a stupid popularity contest, remember? But here's what chaps my ass. People say that a player can't be valuable to a bad team. Case in point: The 2002 MVP race. The A's were surging, they won a bunch of games in a row and Mr Miguel Odalis Tejada Martinez was collecting some clutch hits. Good for him. He's a good player. I like him. But in Texas, there was this dude who was flat out owning the league. Dude was playing Gold Glove defense at shortstop and slugging 57 Homeruns. Awesome right? But his team was in last place. And when it came time to vote, the moronic writers looked at the TEAM when voting for an INDIVIDUAL award. They saw a pitching staff that compiled a 5.15 ERA, compared it to a pitching staff that compiled an ERA of 3.68, and decided that those numbers somehow meant Miguel Tejada was more valuable to his team than Alex Rodriguez. That makes sense right? Anyone? Bueller? I didn't think so.

A player's value should not be influenced by the talent around him. A guy who hits 57 Homeruns is helping his team more than a guy who hits 34. A gold glover is more valuable than a guy who is not. Switch their jerseys and I'd bet the Rangers would have lost a few more games. The A's would likely have been better. The point is A Rod was more valuable to his team than Tejada, even though A Rod's team as a whole was worse. Is that really hard to understand? I hope not. Well, it's late and I'm tired. I'll post the rest later.


The Cy Young Award

I know it's been a while, but seeing the revised 30-man USA roster for the WBC sparked something inside me to comment on this joke of an award. Now, sometimes the writers get it right, like 2004 when Roger Clemens and Johan Santana were selected as the best pitchers in their respective leagues. But in 2005, ignorance reered its ugly head and the two who had won the award a year previous were snubbed. Why? Because people just dont know how to think.

Johan Santana vs Bartolo Colon and Roger Clemens vs Chris Carpenter

Santana was the winner in 2004, after posting a masterful 2.61 ERA even though he'd been pitching in a dome that's conducive to allowing runs. His K rate was excellent (Just under 10.5 per 9) and he even won 20 games, not like that matters. Well, apparently, it does. At least in 2005 it did. The Angels won the AL West in 2005 and posted an impressive aggregate ERA that was Top 5 in all of MLB. Jarrod Washburn put up an ERA of 3.20. But Bartolo Colon got 21 wins. Whoopty doo. His ERA was higher than Washburn's at 3.48 and his K/9 was 3rd on the staff (Behind John Lackey and Ervin Santana). So what does that get him? A Cy Young award? Huh? There was this guy in Minny that posted a 2.87 ERA, struck out over a batter an inning and allowed less homeruns in more innings. You might have heard of him; his name is Johan Santana. So why in any universe would Colon win the award for best pitcher over a guy who was clearly superior? Wins. While Johan Santana was a one-hundredth of a point from tying Kevin Millwood for the ERA title, Colon was assigned more wins than any other pitcher in the AL. So let's look at Wins for a second.

Pitcher A strikes out 10 batters in 7 innings. He leaves the game with a 2-0 lead. But Pitcher B allows 3 runs in the top of the 8th. In the bottom of the eighth, the opposing team's setup man allows 2 runs and the home team takes the lead 4-3. Closer comes in to "Welcome to the Jungle," locks down the Save and the game is over. Now, who is assigned the win? Is it Pitcher A who pitched 7 shutout innings? No, it's the bonehead Pitcher B who blew the lead and almost cost his team the game. Did the Win go to the best pitcher? No, it went to the guy who just so happened to have been the last pitcher before the team took the lead. Wins are not about ability, they are about run support. Perfect example: 2004 Dodgers. Odalis Perez came off a lousy 2003 campaign to post a 3.26 ERA. But due to a lack of run support, he only won 7 games that year. Kaz Ishii, whose ERA was nearly a run and a half higher at 4.71, ended up with 13 wins. Now class, who was the better pitcher? If anyone says Kaz, I'll mistake you for a bird and shoot you.

Back to the topic at hand. Since Wins are based mostly on run support and have little to do with actual ability, people would wise up to the fact that Wins are a terrible indicator of how much a pitcher helped a team right? Wrong. And it was even more obvious in the NL, where Roger Clemens posted the first sub-2.00 ERA in the majors by a starter since Pedro did it in 2000. Was he awarded with the hardware? No, it went to Chris Carpenter, who was assigned 21 wins. But wait, there was a pitcher in the NL who had more wins AND a lower ERA than Carpenter. Wouldnt he be the perfect candidate? Of course not! Why? Because his team didnt make the playoffs. This goes back to the MVP award, where a single player is punished because his TEAM had lesser talent. Doesnt make sense, does it?