MVP Notes
Much Ado About Not Much

-I have already spent a lot of time documenting my views on the AL MVP race here, so I’ll spare you rehashing those arguments. I will say, though, that I was relieved and happy when I saw that A-Rod had beaten out Ortiz. If nothing else, that reaction speaks volumes about how much my positive attitude towards Boston has reversed in the last year since they won the World Series. Maybe it was the excessive spending, maybe it was the media frenzy, maybe it was Theo Epstein’s kiss of death on the franchise, but something changed radically to make me cheer for one of the most loathsome, selfish, big-money mercenaries in the game over a genuinely likable guy with ties to Minnesota. I also considered the possibility that I want the award to maintain its legitimacy so that when my team’s players win, it is a genuine reflection of an achievement. In other words, if Aaron Sele had won the Cy Young every year from 1998-2003, Johan’s 2004 win would mean a lot less. But I think my motivation runs even deeper; I think I just wanted to see them get it right for the sake of getting it right. Amen.

-The vote was far from unanimous, though, as Jason Stark pointed out in his column today. He says that, “Our philosophy about MVPs is that it's about offense first and intangibles second. Defense is one of those intangibles, obviously. But it isn't bigger than leadership.” He also makes two arguments in Papi’s favor: 1. that he was better in “close and late” type situations, and 2. that A-Rod padded his stats in blow-out wins.

I’ll answer these claims in order. First, defense is TANGIBLE. Just because the metrics are imperfect and largely proprietary doesn’t prevent them from giving us an approximation of how much better A-Rod really was. As I mentioned in my earlier column, A-Rod’s glove was worth about 11 runs over what Ortiz did when his teammates were in the field (and that’s not counting the fact that Derek Jeter morphed from a monumental failure at SS to a pretty decent one in A-Rod’s presence). Papi’s leadership? It was probably worth a few runs, but it could also have plausibly cost his team runs, if, say, his cavalier and easy-going attitude prevented a high strung teammate from focusing. I’m not saying that it actually happened, but leadership DEFINITELY falls under what Stark calls “intangibles.”

Second, the close and late statistic is an arbitrary measure. VORP tells us that A-Rod was worth about 17 more runs on offense than Ortiz, so why should it matter when he produces those runs? If he hits a three-run homerun in the first and another in the fifth, do we fault him for striking out in the ninth when the team is up 6-5? Isn’t he still responsible for hitting those homeruns? And doesn’t the inverse of that statistic indicate that Ortiz is unusually bad early in games, preventing his team from getting into the bullpen, wearing out pitchers and establishing a lead for Boston’s pitcher? Perhaps those late-game heroics are sexier, but that doesn’t make them that much more valuable.

Finally, he sites a Red Sox blog that shows A-Rod’s production coming disproportionately in Yankee blowout wins. I can understand if some of my fellow bloggers make the logical error of inverting cause and effect, but Mr. Stark is paid money for his opinion, widely read and generally respected. Did it never occur to him that A-Rod’s production was causing the games to be blowouts? Or perhaps that they game was a blowout because the other team was starting Seth McClung or Jose Lima? Basically, he’s saying that A-Rod should do just enough to keep games close, and then start trying. I’m getting too worked up; if I had handlers, they would be force-feeding me some serotonin reuptake inhibitors right about now.

-Although I think Derrek Lee was a better choice in the NL, I can’t criticize the voters for taking option 1a in Albert Pujols, especially since it kept Andruw Jones from becoming a memorably miserable pick. My one quibble is pretty clear in ESPN.com’s report on the voting: “Had things transpired a little differently on the North Side of Chicago, in fact, Jones wouldn't even have been the second-best candidate -- because Derrek Lee actually had a better statistical year than either Jones or Pujols. But there's a reason they call this the Most Valuable Player award.” Strictly speaking, valuable means “worth a good price,” or “of great use or service,” according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, so you can stop trying to be cute, ESPN staff writer. I have no problem with Pujols beating out Lee, as they were almost mirror images statistically, only distinguishable through stats of which most voters have never heard. But I do have a problem with Lee getting only one first-place vote and losing out to Andruw Jones by a wide margin. Jones hit a lot of homeruns, but didn’t do so well getting on base otherwise, and he put more space between his defensive ability and his stellar defensive reputation, placing him squarely in defensive decline. If you were to use metrics that are especially complimentary to Jones’ skill set, you might be able to sneak him in the top four or five, but certainly not number two. A win is a win, and Lee was worth more than Jones no matter how many Chicago's other players were worth. I know that nobody will care who the runner-up was five years from now, but it shows that lots of well-respected baseball people have little idea what they are talking about.

-Finally, Pujols’ first MVP award after four top four finishes makes him the first Cardinal since Willie McGee (1985) to win the award- a year in which the speedster slugged .503, .107 points above his career average. Pujols also joins the elite ranks of one-time MVPs, such as: Ken Caminiti, Willie Hernandez, Jackie Jensen, Dolph Camilli and Babe Ruth. One of these players doesn’t seem to belong on the list, and I’m not making an argument to discount Caminiti due to steroid use. Ruth led the league in OPS 13 times in 14 years, and failed to win the MVP in 12 of them. In 1918 he led the league in HRs while finishing in the top 10 in CGs and ERA as a pitcher. He set the single-season homerun record without winning the MVP… THREE TIMES! Besides his one win in 1923, he was never in the top four in MVP balloting, and only in the top 10 twice (’31, ’32). To pick one year as an example, he hit .356/.486/.772 in 1927, with 60 HR and 164 RBI. He even ran well, stealing 7 bases and legging out 8 triples. Lou Gehrig had a legitimately great MVP season, but Ruth didn’t appear on a single ballot. According to this great piece, if voters had their heads on straight, and if the award was given through Ruth’s whole career (rather than after 1921, his age 26 season) he would have won at least 6 MVPs, possibly 9-10. Both stats seem more reasonable for the best player of all time.