|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Nov 23, 2022 15:20:13 GMT -8
He was of minimal more value to his team (.3) than Ellsbury was to his. And he appeared on the field 124 fewer times, and often did not play a complete game when he did appear. A player with an 8.3 WAR who impacts all nine innings, offensively and defensively, in 158 games is more important than a player with an 8.6 who impacts 34 (often not the full 9 and never on offense) and DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the other 128 games. Jacoby had one of the greatest seasons ever for a leadoff hitter in the 21st century. Verlander won the Cy Young, as he should have. But there is no way he was the MVP. Actually, he was. I saw them give him the trophy. Unless, you think it was faked like the moon landing. Yeah, OK. How about he should not have been? In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, too. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Nov 23, 2022 18:09:30 GMT -8
This is EXACTLY the wrong interpretation. By the very definition of WAR an 8.6 WAR vs 8.3 WAR means Verlander was MORE valuable to his team. It's a counting stat like HRs and RBIs, doesn't matter if you compile it in 20 games or 120 games. It's rare for a pitcher to win MVP, and that's because you really have to be dominant to be more valuable to your team than an everyday player, but everyone knows that a starting pitcher has the MOST influence over the outcome of every game. He was of minimal more value to his team (.3) than Ellsbury was to his. And he appeared on the field 124 fewer times, and often did not play a complete game when he did appear. A player with an 8.3 WAR who impacts all nine innings, offensively and defensively, in 158 games is more important than a player with an 8.6 who impacts 34 (often not the full 9 and never on offense) and DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the other 128 games. Jacoby had one of the greatest seasons ever for a leadoff hitter in the 21st century. Verlander won the Cy Young, as he should have. But there is no way he was the MVP. He was of more value to his team than Ellsbury was. You could just stop right there. Whether he okayed the field in 150 games or pitching in 34 games, the impact (as calculated by WAR) was in favor of Verlander. Any starting pitcher influences a game materially more than any position player. You can argue that WAR is a bad measure, but you can’t use WAR as a comparison and say that Ellsbury was more valuable than Verlander. By that definition, he was NOT, regardless of how many games each played in. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Nov 23, 2022 18:57:44 GMT -8
He was of minimal more value to his team (.3) than Ellsbury was to his. And he appeared on the field 124 fewer times, and often did not play a complete game when he did appear. A player with an 8.3 WAR who impacts all nine innings, offensively and defensively, in 158 games is more important than a player with an 8.6 who impacts 34 (often not the full 9 and never on offense) and DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the other 128 games. Jacoby had one of the greatest seasons ever for a leadoff hitter in the 21st century. Verlander won the Cy Young, as he should have. But there is no way he was the MVP. He was of more value to his team than Ellsbury was. You could just stop right there. Whether he okayed the field in 150 games or pitching in 34 games, the impact (as calculated by WAR) was in favor of Verlander. Any starting pitcher influences a game materially more than any position player. You can argue that WAR is a bad measure, but you can’t use WAR as a comparison and say that Ellsbury was more valuable than Verlander. By that definition, he was NOT, regardless of how many games each played in. I don’t think you can use the term WAR. Civil or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Nov 23, 2022 20:56:10 GMT -8
Again, Verlander was marginally more important to his team in the 34 games he pitched in. And yes, starting pitchers have an outsized influence. He had no offensive value when he played, and he was OF ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE on the other 128 games the Tigers played that season.
Ellsbury was the only starting CF Boston had, and he had an influence in 158 games, on offense and on defense. Every day he played when Verlander didn't, Ellsbury's WAR advantage was 8.3 because Verlander had no WAR when he didn't play.
You tell me who is more valuable, when their value (WAR) is essentially identical: A guy who comes to work once every five days over a six-month period and who does nothhing on the other four days, or a guy who comes to work almost every single day over a corresponding period.
I'd take an everyday star like Nick Madrigal or Adley Rutschman over a quality starting pitcher like Luke Heimlich every day of the week. We're just gonna agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by tamatrix on Nov 23, 2022 23:16:40 GMT -8
Henry - I generally agree with you, only argument with Verlander a bit more was that he was pitching over 7.1 IP per game so could be argued he was impacting other games because Tigers were able to save up relievers because of his dominance....I'm still with you that Ellsbury should have got it and virtually all field players should over pitchers but eating innings is an interesting thing.
Other interesting thing is also the definition of MVP and how important is a good team vs most outstanding...I'm sure Boston missing playoffs and Tigers making it made a difference to some voters. Something else I disagree with. Similar to judge vs Otani this year....
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Nov 23, 2022 23:28:11 GMT -8
He was of minimal more value to his team (.3) than Ellsbury was to his. And he appeared on the field 124 fewer times, and often did not play a complete game when he did appear. A player with an 8.3 WAR who impacts all nine innings, offensively and defensively, in 158 games is more important than a player with an 8.6 who impacts 34 (often not the full 9 and never on offense) and DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the other 128 games. Jacoby had one of the greatest seasons ever for a leadoff hitter in the 21st century. Verlander won the Cy Young, as he should have. But there is no way he was the MVP. He was of more value to his team than Ellsbury was. You could just stop right there. Whether he okayed the field in 150 games or pitching in 34 games, the impact (as calculated by WAR) was in favor of Verlander. Any starting pitcher influences a game materially more than any position player. You can argue that WAR is a bad measure, but you can’t use WAR as a comparison and say that Ellsbury was more valuable than Verlander. By that definition, he was NOT, regardless of how many games each played in. What I don't get is that Ellsbury had an oWAR of 7.5 and a dWAR of 1.4 but only had a WAR of 8.3. Where did the other 0.6 go? Also, how is it that Ellsbury's RAR was 83, while Verlander's was only 80. How does creating 83 more runs somehow result in a lower number of wins? Also also, Verlander finished 2011 0/4 with three strikeouts and an opposite field fly ball. His offensive WAR was -0.1, making it an even closer analysis. Ellsbury should have won in 2011 over Verlander. He was a better all-around player. |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Nov 24, 2022 21:14:14 GMT -8
Again, Verlander was marginally more important to his team in the 34 games he pitched in. And yes, starting pitchers have an outsized influence. He had no offensive value when he played, and he was OF ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE on the other 128 games the Tigers played that season. Ellsbury was the only starting CF Boston had, and he had an influence in 158 games, on offense and on defense. Every day he played when Verlander didn't, Ellsbury's WAR advantage was 8.3 because Verlander had no WAR when he didn't play. You tell me who is more valuable, when their value (WAR) is essentially identical: A guy who comes to work once every five days over a six-month period and who does nothhing on the other four days, or a guy who comes to work almost every single day over a corresponding period. I'd take an everyday star like Nick Madrigal or Adley Rutschman over a quality starting pitcher like Luke Heimlich every day of the week. We're just gonna agree to disagree. WAR is a measure of value. In 34 games, Verlander compiled as much value as Ellsbury did in 150+. I’m not sure you understand what you’re arguing. |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Nov 25, 2022 11:10:30 GMT -8
Lots of splitting hairs. Bottom line, pitchers have the Cy Young award, which is essentially the pitching MVP. MVP should be for position players.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawksea on Dec 1, 2022 14:25:17 GMT -8
If you use FWAR, Ellsbury was worth 9.5 FWAR and Verlander was worth 6.7 FWAR. So Ellsbury was a vastly more valuable player when you combine the two.
|
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 1, 2022 14:35:17 GMT -8
If you use FWAR, Ellsbury was worth 9.5 FWAR and Verlander was worth 6.7 FWAR. So Ellsbury was a vastly more valuable player when you combine the two. I think fWAR leans a lot heavier on FIP for pitchers while bWAR gives you more credit for your actual pitching performance. WAR, by it's nature, is never going to be perfectly accurate, but the argument I was having with Henry was that WAR is WAR. Position player WAR of 6 in theory is equally as valuable as pitcher WAR of 6. I don't have any problem with the argument that Ellsbury was more deserving of the MVP than Verlander - just so long as you don't use bWAR as the reason.  |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Dec 1, 2022 14:56:28 GMT -8
If you use FWAR, Ellsbury was worth 9.5 FWAR and Verlander was worth 6.7 FWAR. So Ellsbury was a vastly more valuable player when you combine the two. I prefer GWAR.....they rock. |
|
