MVPs: TROUT, BRYANT

[packs]

Betts I think was hampered by Ortiz's season. During the season a bunch of people were calling for Ortiz to be the MVP, though Betts was clearly the best player on the team. Trout, though, has no competition on the Angels and is clearly not only their best player, but the best player in the league. His advanced stats tells you everything you need to know:

#1 in WAR
#1 in Offensive WAR
#1 in OBP
#1 in OPS +
#1 in Runs Created (on a terrible team)
#1 in Power Speed

In many of these categories he is ahead of only Betts. So he clearly had the better season.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by packs

Betts I think was hampered by Ortiz's season. During the season a bunch of people were calling for Ortiz to be the MVP, though Betts was clearly the best player on the team. Trout, though, has no competition on the Angels and is clearly not only their best player, but the best player in the league. His advanced stats tells you everything you need to know:

#1 in WAR
#1 in Offensive WAR
#1 in OBP
#1 in OPS +
#1 in Runs Created (on a terrible team)
#1 in Power Speed

In many of these categories he is ahead of only Betts.

I read somewhere that some of the stats he's putting up this early in his career are putting him in company that only Babe Ruth is in.

[packs]

I think Mike Trout's age 28 to 31 seasons will be legendary.

[Econteachert205]

The only ridiculous argument is that a player on a losing team is somehow more valuable to that team than a player with similar statistics on a winning team. The gold standard for this is Steve Carlton in 1972. So valuable, if it weren't for him they would have sucked worse. Also a player cannot put a team on his back for a whole season, but certainly can for one month, I've seen David Ortiz do it.

[nat]

The directions for voting for the award mention "actual contribution to the team", and explicitly say that the winner need not come from a playoff team. Trout simply contributed more wins to his team than Betts did to his.

As for Verlander and advanced stats. No, that's not it. Verlander does very well by the advanced stats. He actually led the league in baseball-reference's version of WAR (albeit by a meaninglessly small margin over Kluber). I don't know why Verlander was left off two ballots, he really shouldn't have been.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by nat

The directions for voting for the award mention "actual contribution to the team", and explicitly say that the winner need not come from a playoff team. Trout simply contributed more wins to his team than Betts did to his.

As for Verlander and advanced stats. No, that's not it. Verlander does very well by the advanced stats. He actually led the league in baseball-reference's version of WAR (albeit by a meaninglessly small margin over Kluber). I don't know why Verlander was left off two ballots, he really shouldn't have been.

I was going to make the point you just did. Where does it say you have to be the most valuable player to a winning team. If the Angels didn't have Trout they may not have had any shot a fielding a competitive team.

[nsaddict]

Guess times have changed. If you want to see a travesty of justice, check out the 1934 mvp voting. They gave it to Cochrane because his Tigers finished first, Yanks 3rd.Total screw job!

Cochrane war (4.0) runs (74) hits (140) hr(2) rbi (75) avg (320)


Gehrig war (10.4) runs (128) hits (210) hr (49) rbi (166) avg (363)

and Lou ended up 5th in voting? wtf

[insidethewrapper]

Trout MVP ? Maybe.
Here's some other stats : 16th in American league for hits, 26th in HR's, 14th in RBI's and 5th in Ave. His team lost more than they won. Also struck out 137 times. I know he's a great player, but stats can be used many different ways.

[Snapolit1]

From Twitter:

He's led the AL in WAR each of the last 5 seasons. The last guy to do that? Babe Ruth.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by nat

Trout simply contributed more wins to his team than Betts did to his.

Totally agree. This is what makes him more valuable IMHO.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by nat

The directions for voting for the award mention "actual contribution to the team", and explicitly say that the winner need not come from a playoff team. Trout simply contributed more wins to his team than Betts did to his.

As for Verlander and advanced stats. No, that's not it. Verlander does very well by the advanced stats. He actually led the league in baseball-reference's version of WAR (albeit by a meaninglessly small margin over Kluber). I don't know why Verlander was left off two ballots, he really shouldn't have been.

Hey, whatever makes Kate happy!


bb

[Econteachert205]

When will the voters wise up and elect a manager of a dog crap team manager of the year because of his managerial WAR? After all they wouldn't have won 71 games with any other manager

[Peter_Spaeth]

No issues at all with the picks. I guess Ortiz would have been a nice sentimental choice and I could have lived with that.