Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
November 14, 2005
A-Rod MVP

Alex Rodriguez won the AL MVP today in a very tight vote, out distancing David Ortiz by 24 points. The closeness of the race indicates to me that the DH position wasn't that big a factor in the voter's minds. They were willing to vote Ortiz over other fielders like Ramirez and Sheffield, who in total contributed more than than Ortiz did with just the bat.

I agree with the outcome, but I'm surprised at how close it turned out to be. I was expecting the lack of contribution from Ortiz on the defensive side to weigh very heavily with voters. I guess a small number of big hits is more meaningful than a complete season of excellence.

This ends a 20 year MVP drought for the Yankees, do did very well in the voting with four players finishing in the top 10. Given the Yankees excellence since 1994, this is the only the third major award they've won in that time (the others being Jeter's Jackie Robinson award for best rookie and Roger Clemens' Cy Young). It also breaks the AL West's strangle hold on the MVP. The last nine went to players from that division.

The complete voting is here. It shows how little voters value defense as people like Jhonny Peralta and Aaron Rowand did not pick up a single vote.

Congratulations to Alex Rodriguez on his second MVP. He probably should have at least four by now.


Posted by David Pinto at 02:13 PM | Awards | TrackBack (0)
Comments

A-Rod was undoubtedly the BEST player in the AL this year, but I think a strong argument can be made that Ortiz was the MOST VALUABLE player.

Ortiz, also clearly a very good player, did his damage at particularly valuable times. This is not just ESPN hilights talking -- Baseball Prospectus did a win expected analysis of batters a last month, with Ortiz easily leading the majors in expected wins added.

Posted by: Craig A. Damon at November 14, 2005 02:43 PM

This one may have been fair, but he didn't deserve the one he got for Texas in '03.

Posted by: Yankee Despiser at November 14, 2005 02:49 PM

Except that Boston was leading the division most of the year, the Yankees only over took them at the end.

Posted by: rbj at November 14, 2005 02:50 PM

I think Baseball Prospectus did a "Mills Brothers" / "Tangotiger" Win Expectancy rating and found that Ortiz was over 3.0 WINS better than A-Rod. In other words, Ortiz was "clutch" to an objectively massive degree, easily justifying an MVP award for him, even taking into account zero fielding contributions.

Can't expect sportstwriters to know of, still less understand and use with confidence, the Wins Expected stat.

A-Rod wasn't a bad choice.

Posted by: Mike Humphreys at November 14, 2005 03:05 PM

if your going to point to the one in '03 that he might not have deserved then you should also point out that he was robbed in 1996.

Posted by: ben at November 14, 2005 03:23 PM

Considering that we're up to 25 comments on two posts just TODAY on this blog about this debate, I'm amused. Both David Ortiz and A-Rod deserved this award. You can argue all you want for one or the other, but I don't hear anyone saying that neither of them were legitimate MVPs. Take either of them away from their team and the other runs away with the division. Break down their production into as many stats as you want and the numbers all say the same thing: Either player deserved the award and neither deserved it over the other.

In this case, the BBWAA got it right but only because they couldn't have gotten it wrong unless they voted someone else MVP.

Posted by: Benjamin Kabak at November 14, 2005 03:25 PM

I have done extensive analysis using a Win Expectancy-type approach, and have determined that Ortiz was in fact more valuable than ARod this year, even when factoring in defense and the differential in Replacement Player level. Check out my story How to Measure Value Properly: Why David Ortiz is the AL's Most Valuable Player at RedSox2000.com for the details.

Posted by: BosoxBob at November 14, 2005 03:27 PM

But you only did those two players. Who's to say that someone else wasn't more valuable, based on your criteria? Do it for everyone else in the AL, then your argument holds some weight.

Posted by: JC at November 14, 2005 03:48 PM

Hafner is the only other person I might think it worth doing for. I read somewhere he had a better OPS than Ortiz in close and late situations.

I didn't realize Baseball Prospectus did this as well. Guess that's what happens when you charge for a membership to your website.

Posted by: Mike at November 14, 2005 03:54 PM

Why would Rowand get a vote? I agree that he is probably the best defensive OFer in the AL, but according to voters..he isn't even gold glove worthy.

Posted by: Rob at November 14, 2005 04:12 PM

It seems the only case Ortiz has over A-Rod is in Win Expectancy. And I agree that this should be considered, but if that's your only argument on Ortiz's behalf then you're in trouble.

Part of the problem comes with something Bosox Bob wrote in the piece he linked to above. It reads:

"...anyone who follows the game of baseball would agree that a walk-off game-winning home run is worth more than home run hit early in the game."

Actually I'm not sure I agree with that, but for argument's sake let's grant him that. Let's say in Scenario 1 A-Rod, batting second, hits a home run in the top of the first that puts the Yanks up 1-0. Therefore he increases the Win Expectancy of his team by .018 (that's a .449 WE before the homer, .467 after). The run holds up and the Yanks win 1-0.

Now let's say David Ortiz hits a tie-breaking walk-off homer with two outs in the bottom of the ninth. He increases the Red Sox Win Expectancy by .411 (that's a .589 WE before the homer, 1.000 after).

Now honestly -- do you really think that Ortiz's homer was TWENTY-THREE times more valuable than A-Rod's? I know I've chosen an exaggerated case, but I don't find it too out of line with the arguments being made on Ortiz's behalf. Again, Win Expectancy is a valuable metric to have, and it should be used in this debate, but let's have a little perspective. It's far from a perfect tool, and certainly not the first and last one you should consult.

Posted by: Brian Gunn at November 14, 2005 04:27 PM

Hey JC, I've got an idea. Why don't you go through an entire year's worth of game logs like I did and collect plate appearance data for the guy you think should have gotten the award? I'll be glad to tell you the format required and run the numbers when you're done.

As Mike indicated, Hafner is probably the only guy who would warrant consideration. Hafner, like Ortiz, singlehandedly carried his team at times and also had several "clutch" late game hits. However, his early-season slump combined with missed playing time due to injury killed any chance he had at having better numbers than Ortiz. (Note: I have seen similar stats to mine which included all players, and only Hafner and Vlad came within 2 wins of ARod.)

Posted by: BosoxBob at November 14, 2005 04:29 PM

Most of us would agree that it's a bad idea to give Andruw Jones the MVP of the NL. Yes, he did hit the most HR's, but his OPS was well behind guys like Lee and Pujols. And most of us here believe that OPS is a better indicator of a player's value to a team than HRs.

Well, I believe that WPA is a better indicator of a player's value than OPS. I don't care how many stats ARod beats Ortiz in... there's one stat that I think best encompasses how much value a player added to his team and that's WPA.

So, in a sense, I do think Ortiz home run was 23 times more valuable than ARod's, in terms of what it gave to the team this year.

If you are looking to next year, and you gave me the choice between the two stat lines (BA, OPS, HRs, etc.), I'd pick ARod for my team. Definitely. It looks like he is going to have better numbers than Ortiz next year. And if things even out, its likely that his better numbers will come at similar times to Ortiz' not-quite-as-good numbers, and so ARod will have a higher WPA than Ortiz next year.

In terms of pure skill, ARod might have been a better ballplayer this year. In terms of value to a team, Ortiz beat him by a lot.

Posted by: Mike at November 14, 2005 04:45 PM

Brian, I'm not sure where your WE numbers are coming from, but they are far different from mine (which I generated myself in a process that's too complicated to get into here). In your example, I have ARod's 1st inning HR increasing the Yankees' Win Expectancy by .109, and Ortiz' walk-off HR increasing the Sox' Win Expectancy by .469. That would make Ortiz's HR worth 4.3 times that of ARod's. Is that reasonable? I sure think it is. After ARod's HR, the Sox still have 27 outs to play with, and the odds are very high that they'll score at least one run. 1-0 games are extremely rare, especially in the AL. After Ortiz' HR, the Yankees don't get a chance to tie it up - the game is over.

Posted by: BosoxBob at November 14, 2005 04:46 PM

I agree with Brian. It would be nice if this could be balanced with credit for fielding. So letting the game winning double go by your position would hurt your number. But of course, that would only help Ortiz since he doesn't have a chance to do anything negative in the field.

Posted by: David Pinto at November 14, 2005 05:26 PM

What a bunch of hot air!!!!
Jerry Rabinowitz

Posted by: jerry rabinowitz at November 14, 2005 05:38 PM

If you believe the BP wins expected is a good indicator for the MVP, as I do, there is a real irony here.

I would have given Ortiz the MVP.
I would have given A-Rod the Aaron award as best hitter.

Posted by: Craig A. Damon at November 14, 2005 06:39 PM

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, Bosox Bob, because if two players each hit solo home runs in separate one-run games, then they seem equal in value to me, regardless of when they're hit. Sure, the Yanks still had to get 27 outs to win, but that's only looking at the games narratively. In retrospect the value of each home run is the same. (To put it another way, if the Yankees had to get 27 outs to make A-Rod's homer stand up, the Red Sox would have to get 27 outs to set up Ortiz's homer.)

And I'm still wondering what, beyond Win Expectancy, recommends Ortiz over A-Rod. Surely that can't be the be-all-end-all stat for determining MVP, can it?

Posted by: Brian Gunn at November 14, 2005 07:17 PM

A-scrod who? Another fine example of an overpaid, classless NY jerk type ballplayer. He doesn't even deserve a seat on the airplane. He had a numbers season with a team of overhyped misfit whiners. Big Papi was a clutch player all season long. The fact that he does not play in the field should not even come into consideration in this voting. I think Paul Konerko deserved it more than that cheating, pouty thridbaseman who plays for Mr. Checkwriter. No true baseball fan would validate this award by saying he deserved it. Bumpkiss! I wish he would go back and play for Seattle where he should have stayed in the first place. If he had never signed that huge contract with Texas baseball wouldn't be in the sad shape it is currently in with these monster contracts. Go home A-blog!

Posted by: Bob at November 14, 2005 07:19 PM

You've convinced me, Bob.

Posted by: Brian Gunn at November 14, 2005 11:19 PM

A-Rod was undoubtedly the BEST player in the AL this year, but I think a strong argument can be made that Ortiz was the MOST VALUABLE player.

Oh no, not this again.

What if Mike Sweeney declares that he will KILL HIMSELF if the Royals finish last again in 2006 and ONLY ANGEL BERROA AND HIS 0.252/0.307/0.374 LINE STANDS BETWEEN MIKE SWEENEY AND DEATH BY SELF INDUCED BACK PULL. IS NOTHING MORE VALUABLE THAN HUMAN LIFE?!

Posted by: Floyd McWilliams at November 15, 2005 03:33 AM

Brian: be aware that Ortiz had more doubles than ARod. He also weighs more, giving him more lbs-per-HR. It comes down to two things: (1) what you think the award is supposed to commend, and (2) how you measure that.

I think it's supposed to commend value (in terms of wins) to a team. And I think WPA is the best tool for measuring this.

If you think it's supposed to measure raw skill, i.e. who the best player was, you might give it to whoever has the best OPS for the season.

Kind of like pitching: if you want to know who pitched the best, ERA is a pretty good stat. If you want to know who the most skilled pitcher was, you might look at something like DIPS.

Posted by: Mike at November 15, 2005 09:02 AM

In my mind, Win Expectancy is the only rational argument for Ortiz over A-Rod. If you look at context-independent metrics, I don't think one could argue that Ortiz is the better player. In other words, it is his clutch hitting that made Ortiz a viable MVP candidate, not a guy one votes for in the lower half of the ballot.

That being said, I'm uncomfortable looking only at Win Expectancy. Most everyone who has studied the issue of clutch hitting concludes that while there obviously are clutch performances, clutch hitting doesn't seem to be a persistant skill above what a random distribution would predict.

To me, one would want to consider all three of the following:
- Who produced the most runs (including preventing the opposition from scoring)?
- Who increased most the probability of winning ball games?
- Who increased most the probability of his team making the playoffs?
Win expectancy answers quite convincingly the second question (although one would have to factor A-Rod's defensive value too to make the comparison complete), but it's not the only reasonable way to examine the situation.

Posted by: Michael at November 15, 2005 10:30 AM

"The closeness of the race indicates to me that the DH position wasn't that big a factor in the voter's minds."
I'd put it more to the likeability factor - Ted Williams was jobbed out of more than one MVP trophy because he and the media didn't get along. As a wise guy once said, "Personality goes a long way", just not quite long enough in Ortiz's case.

Posted by: Dave at November 15, 2005 11:09 AM

"I think [the MVP Award is] supposed to commend value (in terms of wins) to a team." We agree, Mike. I'm just not at all persuaded that Ortiz produced more wins than A-Rod this year. And as I explained earlier, WPA is a fairly clumsy tool. It is designed to measure win probabilities over the course of a game, not wins per se (or even derivatives of wins, to borrow a financial term). I wish I agreed with you, though, because it would make determining the best player in each league very easy each year. You could just look at WPA and be done with it.

Posted by: Brian Gunn at November 15, 2005 12:13 PM

Except that Boston was leading the division most of the year, the Yankees only over took them at the end.

Sox fans are too much. The Sox fade at the end, but we're supposed to think they're a better team because they had more wins until the end? I guess they've been the best team in baseball most of the last 87 years.

I read Papi's clutch stats yesterday. Awesome. But THIS YEAR, he faded at the end too. And while Sox fans try to push the idea that Papi just carries the team on his back, he's been on the team three years, and they've gotten through the first round once. (When they did get through, half the team played out of their skulls - led by Papi and Schilling - and that's what it usually takes to win the Series.)

Anyway, take a look at the Baseball Analysti's stats here . They say A-Rod was the clear winner.

Posted by: john massengale at November 16, 2005 10:20 AM

Ha. "Yankees ...overtook them at the end." Hahahaha. NO.

HELLO, retards. Won't you please remember that it was a TIE and the division was AWARDED (NOT won) to the soulless boys in pinstripes?

Thank you, but keep your massive-ego superiority complex to yourself until you are ready to acknowledge the truth.

Posted by: Ally at November 17, 2005 12:30 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?