Tango on Baseball Archives

Instructions for MVP (September 22, 2003)

Text sent to voters...
Dear Voter:
There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters.

Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

=======================
Actual value of a player to his team

To a typical fan, a team has achieved something if they get into the playoffs.
To hardcore fans, a team has achieved something by being competitive.
To true fans, a team has achieved something if they win that game.

To the players themselves? I would think they find value in a player that helps them win that game.

So, forgetting about what we want "value" to mean, or the MVP to team, concentrate on those words: "Actual value of a player to his team".

To "his team", how valuable is ARod? To "his team", how valuable is Posada or Giambi or anyone else?

It seems to me that if ARod gives his team 10 more wins than they would have had with Joe Schlub, and Giambi gives the Yanks 7 more wins, the perspective of the players would probably be strictly on "who helps me win more games".

The question of "who helps me win more games that will make me get into the playoffs" is not necessarily the question that "his team" is asking. Perhaps most teams don't ask that question because they don't have a good chance to begin with.

So, to the players, is the actual value a player has based on helping in trying to win that game, or helping in trying to reach the playoffs? Is a team that is not in contention for the playoffs automatically have no player of value to his team?

I believe that the perspective of "actual value to his team" is based on game-level performance, in a vaccum to what is happening to the standings around them. Of course, if players from around the league are telling me that their perspective is only the playoffs, then I stand corrected, and ARod has virtually no value to his team.

You can't take the perspective of the "playoff contender" and give ARod even one vote. You can't take the perspective of the "game contender" and give ARod no votes. It's an either-or question from where I sit.
--posted by TangoTiger at 01:08 PM EDT

Posted 3:38 p.m., September 22, 2003 (#1) - David Smyth
It doesn't just say "actual value of a player to his team"--it says "actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense." That qualifier is all-important, as an attempt to clarify. It completely, and presumably intentionally, avoids mentioning the quality of the team, or whether they make the postseason. Someone can try to argue that such a consideration is inherent in the term 'actual value', but that is debatable. The purpose of a clarifying phrase is supposed to be just that--to clarify what may be unclear. That it does not include any hint that the team's playoff situation should be a factor, implies to me that they didn't intend it to be.

Posted 4:00 p.m., September 22, 2003 (#2) - David Smyth
Of course, in the first part it essentially says that the MVP is whatever any individual voter wants it to be. That seems to be a more modern add-on, as opposed to the other part from 1931, which, given the first part, it seems they're just keeping aroung for historical reasons, not because it still means anything.

Posted 4:19 p.m., September 22, 2003 (#3) - tangotiger
The genius of BBWAA is that by not making things stone-cold, it opens up the debate every single damn year, making this debate probably the most debated topic after Pete Rose.

Posted 6:15 p.m., September 22, 2003 (#4) - David Smyth
"The genius of BBWAA"? Yes, you are probably onto something.

Thinking about it, there is really nothing wrong with that--throwing out a common English phrase (Most Valuable Player), and, realizing that this a vote award instead of a math calculation, keeping it somewhat ambiguous. Autonomy is a central characteristic of a vote system.

So what that boils down to, is that the most important variable is who the voters are. THAT should pretty much be the sole focus of MVP criticism.

I sort of think that it is better to "open up" an "award" system as much as possible. So I say, screw the BBWAA and let the "fans" vote for MVP, in the same way they vote for the ALL-Stars. Whether or not that would result in a more "sabermetric" choice than the present system, I have no real idea. But I would greatly prefer it. The sportswriters may be more informed than the typical fan, on a one by one basis. But the fans greatly outnumber them, and so some guy who has a buzz up his ass because Ted W or Bonds Jr "disrespected" him in some way will not have a great impact.

Who was it that decided that, among sabers, avg fans, players, managers, and sportswriters, that the latter have some sort of greater connection to the truth?

Open the vote as much as possible, and I am very confident that the correct player will be chosen much more often then nowadays..

Posted 8:28 p.m., September 22, 2003 (#5) - FJM
There's another aspect to this highly subjective process that nobody has touched on. I have often heard it said: "Joe Blow may be the MVP of the league, but Jack Black is the MVP on Joe Blow's team." That always struck me as odd. Now, having read the instructions, it is clear (to me at least) that it is not merely odd but a violation of the rules. In order to qualify for league MVP voting at all, Joe Blow must first of all be the MVP of his own team. That suggests a two-stage voting process: each team selects its own MVP first, then the sportswriters (or whoever) select among the team MVP's. This process would alleviate several weaknesses of the current system, such as a team with 2 strong MVP candidates having their votes split.

Posted 12:57 p.m., September 25, 2003 (#6) - Scoriano
I wonder if the instructions for the Hank Aaron Award provide any insight as well or have they given the vote for that to the fans, changing it from the hitters equivalent of the CYA to a popularity contest?

Posted 1:56 p.m., September 25, 2003 (#7) - Yaz
Scoriano, in looking at mlb.com, it appears the vote for the Hank Aaron Award is entirely fan-based. I just voted for Bonds and Manny. In addition, there does not seem to be a limit to how many times one might vote.

Previously, the HAA was decided strictly on stats; from baseball-almanac.com: " During the 1999 season, winners were determined by assigning a pre-determined number of points for each hit, home run, and run batted in. "

They go on to state that during the 2000 season, the award was voted on by broadcasters. Hmm, they'd do a MUCH better job than the BBWAA.

I favor opening up the vote to fans and players, as long as there are some sort of qualifications attached: can't vote for a teaamate, player must have a certain # of PA's or GS, IP, or whatever. I don't see any reason why the fans, players, coaches, etc should be shut out of voting. Writers seem to vote for what they think the best "story" of the year is, and are inconsistent in their voting patterns, both across years and on indiviual ballots. I think winning the BBWAA MVP/Cy Young/ROY means less now than ever before, as more and more fans are paying attention to more in-depth stats the writers ignore, and more fans vote in things like the Internet Baseball Awards.

But that's just me.

Posted 6:18 p.m., September 25, 2003 (#8) - Scoriano
Thanks Yaz. Popularity contest was too strong but I have a feeling that many times Griffey might have undeservedly won in the early/mid-90s.

However, we might actually see good results with the fans voting.

Posted 8:00 p.m., September 28, 2003 (#9) - RossCW
It's an either-or question from where I sit.

The value to a team is from winning games. Contributions in losses are of no value because the outcome created no value. They are like helping build a house that is blown down in a windstorm, your contribution has no value since the house has no value. This makes it not an either or question. A player may contribute so much to his team's wins that it makes up for the fact there aren't very many of them, but the fewer wins the greater the contribution required.

I think you can take this a step further - that wins in a pennant race are more valuable to a team than wins which aren't. So even on different teams with the same number of wins, the player who contributed to his team winning the pennant race is more valuable to his team than one who contributed to a fourth place finish.

Posted 8:21 a.m., September 29, 2003 (#10) - David Smyth
RossCW, where does it say anything about team wins in the guidelines for MVP?

Posted 10:42 a.m., September 29, 2003 (#11) - RossCW
where does it say anything about team wins in the guidelines for MVP?

It says the "value a player to his team". You can interpret that any number of ways. What value is there to the team from a player's contribution in a loss. Without the player presumably they still would have lost.

Posted 10:55 a.m., September 29, 2003 (#12) - David Smyth
As so many do, you have chosen to ignore the second part of that same sentence, which is "...that is, strength of offense and defense." It doesn't say "...that is, relative to how many games the team won."

Sure, you can figure out a way to get around that, in order to justify what you *want* it to mean. But as Bill James once wrote, "Very like a whale".

Posted 12:24 p.m., September 29, 2003 (#13) - RossCW
As so many do, you have chosen to ignore the second part of that same sentence, which is "...that is, strength of offense and defense."

And how does that change its meaning? I think you are reading something into it that isn't there.

The letter explicitly states "The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier." If the intent was to ignore a team's record entirely why not just say so? Especially since that has traditionally been one of the criteria used by many voters.

Sure, you can figure out a way to get around that, in order to justify what you *want* it to mean. But as Bill James once wrote, "Very like a whale".

And that seems to me to be what you are doing.

Posted 12:40 p.m., September 29, 2003 (#14) - tangotiger
Value in a loss:

It depends what the objective of the player is. I look at the objective of the player in "trying to help his team towards winning that game".

From that standpoint, having Ted Lilly pitch a 1-0 no-hit loss would qualify as having alot of value. He kept his team in the game as much as he could. Therefore, I measure value from the "win probability added" perspective, where you measure the change in theoretical win expectancy after every discrete event, and attribute (somehow) the change to the players involved.

However, people can view it from "playoff probability added", or "playoff probability added in games won", or whatever. Again, you can really make the definition however you want it, since it's not clearly defined as to what value is.

My only problem is people saying that they won't vote ARod #1, but will think nothing of voting him #2. Apparently, there is such a huge price to pay in not playing for a contender that it knocks say about 20 effective runs from him for the #1 spot, but it doesn't knock him down enough to put him in the #10 spot or so.

That is, if you have something like this, as runs above replacement (illustration purposes only):
+80 ARod
+65 Boone
+63 Posada
+61 Ramirez
+59 Halladay
etc, etc

Somehow, ARod is dropped from the top spot, and someone else gets ahead of him, but enough to stay ahead of everyone else. In this case, the voters penalize ARod for performing on a team that doesn't have much to gain by exactly 16 runs. They could have penalized him 14 runs, and let him take the top spot. They could have penalized him 22 runs, and let him take the #5 spot. But, no. The way the ballots will come in, he'll get either a #1 or #2 spot on every ballot (probably).

In fact, chances are, because of the diverse possibilities, he might get the fewest #1 ballots and still be MVP. Anyone have a count of the current record?

Anyway, I think some voters have decided only after the fact what the penalty is. If they would say before the fact, that they will penalize such a player 20 runs, then I can respect that. I don't think that's how some voters think. They just "look at everything", and make their selection.

Of course, they can "look at everything" in 3 months, and have different conclusions too.

Posted 12:45 p.m., September 29, 2003 (#15) - tangotiger
As for foreign players and the Rookie of the Year: I have no problem setting an age limit. They did this in hockey, and no one complains. Makarov, probably the best player on the best Russian team that ever played, a team that went toe-to-toe with probably the best Canadian team that every played...

(Gretz and Lemieux on the same line!... I love that play where they win the draw in their own end, and Gretz send that pass against the boards to Lemieux, who passes it back to Gretz, and while a Russian falls/trips, Lemieux goes by him, gets the pass from Gretz, and even though Murphy is wide open at the net, Lemieux, at an unbelievable speed, just flicks the shot passed the goalie!.... I LOVE that play!)

... won the Rookie of the year. With the incredible influx of new talent in the league, they quickly capped the rookie of the year age at 26 or something. (Interestingly, Gretzky, in his first year in the NHL, won the MVP, but not the Rookie of the Year, because he played the prior year in the WHA.)

I think we need a hockeyprimer.com

Posted 7:02 p.m., September 29, 2003 (#16) - David Smyth
I interpret the "The MVP need not come from a division winner..." guideline in a different way than RossCW. To me, that statement, especially considering the specific "strength of offense and defense" guideline, is saying something like, "Vote for the best player, regardless of the quality of his teammates."

If you look up "value" in the dictionary, there are several definitions, but none which is directly applicable to baseball. There is no clarification of whether it should mean value in actual games won, or value towards winning games, or pennants, yada yada. So the clarification (strength of offense and defense) is, to me the only thing there is to hang one's hat on.

The only problem is, people want the MVP to be about what THEY want it to be about, and so they, perhaps subconsciously, look for ways to get around the most logical and literal interpretation of those written guidelines.

The worst offenders, of course, are those voters who say that a pitcher should not be MVP, and that a reliever could never be valuable enough to win. Maybe I'm blind, but I do not see even a hint of such a sentiment in the rules. And the interpretations of people like RossCW are really just more of the same types of bias, only presented with a bit more surface logic.

Posted 9:46 p.m., September 29, 2003 (#17) - RossCW
I interpret the "The MVP need not come from a division winner..." guideline in a different way than RossCW. To me, that statement, especially considering the specific "strength of offense and defense" guideline, is saying something like, "Vote for the best player, regardless of the quality of his teammates."

You certainly are reading a lot into it.

2. Number of games played.

Posted 10:26 p.m., September 29, 2003 (#18) - Patriot
No, that's how he's interpreting something that is left wide open to his interpretation.

And as for number of games played, yes, that's a criteria, but the "strength" of Pedro Martinez' defense is much greater then the strength of ARod's offense on a per game basis. That's the point--a combination of quality and quantity. You can argue all day about how to blend quality and quantity, but if games played was the only criteria, Cal Ripken would have been the MVP 15 times.

Posted 10:43 p.m., September 29, 2003 (#19) - RossCW
That's the point--a combination of quality and quantity. You can argue all day about how to blend quality and quantity

And it is appears to be a perfectly legitimate position that a pitcher's "quality" - especially a relief pitcher's - can not overcome the quantity issue.

, but if games played was the only criteria, Cal Ripken would have been the MVP 15 times.

We aren't really discussing what the criteria are but what they should be.

No, that's how he's interpreting something that is left wide open to his interpretation.

Its not left that wide open. I don't doubt that "value" is deliberately to be left up to the voters to interpret but these instructions are not written in code. They don't need to use a very narrow, specific statement when trying to communicate some very broad unrelated meaning.

Posted 11:33 p.m., September 29, 2003 (#20) - Patriot
"And it is appears to be a perfectly legitimate position that a pitcher's "quality" - especially a relief pitcher's - can not overcome the quantity issue."

There is nothing in those guidelines that implies that this is the case. If you somehow conclude this, more power to you.

Posted 9:29 a.m., September 30, 2003 (#21) - RossCW
There is nothing in those guidelines that implies that this is the case.

The guidelines leave that judgement to the voter - so the question is whether there is something in the guidelines that prevents a voter from making that judgement. I don't think there is. It is quite different than saying pitcher's aren't eligible.