Matt Kemp of LA for the Triple Crown?

[sagegrouse]

Still trailing in BA by .324 to .334, but now ahead in HRs 38 to 37 and well ahead in RBIs.

sagegrouse

[Jim3k]

Still trailing in BA by .324 to .334, but now ahead in HRs 38 to 37 and well ahead in RBIs.

sagegrouse

though it has no impact on the top 3, prince fielder hit 3 homers tonight; he's now at 37 w/ 115 rbi. still 8 rbi behind kemp.

exciting wind-down to the season. wildcards in both leagues tied as of tues. night, not to mention the individual player stat races.

[throatybeard]

I think of MVP this way: if you were drafting a team to win next season, and you knew for a fact that every player's performance next season would be an exact replica of his performance this year, and you had the first pick in the draft, who would you pick? That says "most valuable" to me, regardless of position. The award is named "most valuable player" not "most valuable position player." I think if you had first pick in the draft of all players based on their 2011 performance only, you'd almost have to pick Verlander. To me, that's why he's the MVP.

I like this formulation. It cuts the political BS about pitchers v position guys out. This is a great way of looking at performance. It's about marginal value.

Think about a FFB draft. The first few guys are always RBs. Why, when several QBs will outscore those guys? Because the marginal difference between them and the next RBs is expected to be greater than the difference between, say Rodgers and Rivers.

Great pitchers are rare. Rarer perhaps than Adrian Peterson, when looking at marginal value.

[Mal]

I like that line of thinking, as well. "Value" being thought of in a relative sense instead of just a gross numbers sense.

I've always been firmly in the camp that believes pitchers shouldn't even be in the running for MVP, based on the only playing every fifth day thing, and the fact they've got the Cy Young Award. But I saw a note somewhere (WSJ?) recently that made me completely rethink that. Baseball is all about the one-on-one battles between a pitcher and a hitter, and who wins more of them. As such, maybe we should think less about the number of games in which a player appears, and more about how many plate appearances they're a part of. And the winner there is clearly a strong starting pitcher. Verlander will throw, what, 250 innings? If he has a WHIP of 1.00, that's 1,000 individual plate appearances over the course of the season, far in excess of any hitter. If he's more successful in preventing runs over those plate appearances than the top hitter is in producing them (not sure how to compare those apples and oranges) in fewer trips to the plate, there's an argument that the pitcher's "value" is greater than the hitter's.

On a separate note, the fact that tradition has meant that MVP voters lean toward players on contenders doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. If we stipulate that every win for a playoff contending team is more "valuable" than a win for another team, then yes, I could see going this way. But I don't think of wins as necessarily having more value for one team than another simply based on whether or not they're destined to be in a pennant race later in the year. Pretty much all aspects of what comprises "value" to me devolves into a measure of pure effectiveness on the field and actual quality of play. I know that traditionally the sportswriters conception of "most valuable" has meant "best player on the best team with certain exceptions, like best player on close to the best team if they're significantly superior to anyone on the best team, or best player on a crummy team if they've just had a blow-the-doors-off season." I'd rather it just be synonymous with "most outstanding."

[rasputin]

I like this formulation. It cuts the political BS about pitchers v position guys out. This is a great way of looking at performance. It's about marginal value.

Think about a FFB draft. The first few guys are always RBs. Why, when several QBs will outscore those guys? Because the marginal difference between them and the next RBs is expected to be greater than the difference between, say Rodgers and Rivers.

Great pitchers are rare. Rarer perhaps than Adrian Peterson, when looking at marginal value.

Agreed that there should be separate awards.

The first few guys in FFB being RB's is also because of scarcity: most Fantasy leagues have you start one QB, but two RB's, so there are more QB's to go around.

[throatybeard]

I've always been firmly in the camp that believes pitchers shouldn't even be in the running for MVP, based on the only playing every fifth day thing, and the fact they've got the Cy Young Award. But I saw a note somewhere (WSJ?) recently that made me completely rethink that. Baseball is all about the one-on-one battles between a pitcher and a hitter, and who wins more of them. As such, maybe we should think less about the number of games in which a player appears, and more about how many plate appearances they're a part of. And the winner there is clearly a strong starting pitcher. Verlander will throw, what, 250 innings? If he has a WHIP of 1.00, that's 1,000 individual plate appearances over the course of the season, far in excess of any hitter. If he's more successful in preventing runs over those plate appearances than the top hitter is in producing them (not sure how to compare those apples and oranges) in fewer trips to the plate, there's an argument that the pitcher's "value" is greater than the hitter's.

Dag, that's some smart word-sayin, there, Mal. I love the PAs argument.