Edwin for Cy … and MVP?

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

Buster Olney, after the obligatory Aaron Judge worship, was making a case on the Baseball Tonight podcast, for Diaz to be the NL Cy Young Award, then said there is a case to be the NL MVP as well.



Tim Kurkjain put him second in the Cy, behind Sandy Alcantra, and said maybe sixth in the MVP. He basically said no reliever should win either.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Guest

[kcmets]

It's August 9th

[Edgy MD]

It'd be nice, but it looks like its Alcantara's race to lose.

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

Oh, I know. Just reporting what they were saying. It's rare for them to get the Mets that much love. I thought the pool might enjoy hearing about it.

[roger_that]

He certainly does a lot to assuage our ingrained nervousness about our closer. I haven't read anyone complaining about how jangly their nerves get when Diaz comes into the game

[Edgy MD]

Oh, I get jangly.



His weapons are amazing, but a tight game and a new pitcher and youneverknow!

[Benjamin Grimm]

Was that his evil twin who was pitching in 2019?

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: Oh, I get jangly. His weapons are amazing, but a tight game and a new pitcher and youneverknow!

Not Franco-jangly, though. Not Benitez-jangly. Not even Wagner-jangly.

[Fman99]

I mean Pete Alonso is the MVP, but, sure, give Edwin the CY

[Edgy MD]

I feel like Francisco Lindor kind of caught up to Alonso, more or less today.

[soupcan]

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=103197 time=1660093224 user_id=119]
He basically said no reliever should win either.

[Edgy MD]

Mike Marshall, 1974 Cy Young, and third in MVP balloting.

[kcmets]

What does Mike Marshall have to do with any of this?

[Edgy MD]

Though he didn't win an MVP, like those others, he was a reliever who won a Cy Young.

[Frayed Knot]

I think Kase might be confusing Mike Marshall 1B with Mike Marshall RH reliever.

[Edgy MD]

Maybe.



The Cy Reliever Club also includes Steve Bedrock, Sparky Lyle, and, um ... Sutter, I think.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'm with Kurkjian. Only if they shouldn't be winning those awards, they shouldn't be finishing in second place, either.

[smg58]

Diaz had 3.5 WAR (going by Fangraphs) in his great season in 2018, and he probably won't top that this year (he's at 2.3 WAR). Five Mets position players and one pitcher (Scherzer, despite the injury) rank higher. I don't think you can make a realistic MVP case for him. As for Cy, I'm not categorically against awarding relievers but they not only have to be exceptional, there can't be a really deserving starting pitcher. And Alcantara is deserving, at least as of now.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=smg58 post_id=103239 time=1660100043 user_id=62]
Diaz had 3.5 WAR (going by Fangraphs) in his great season in 2018, and he probably won't top that this year (he's at 2.3 WAR). Five Mets position players and one pitcher (Scherzer, despite the injury) rank higher. I don't think you can make a realistic MVP case for him. As for Cy, I'm not categorically against awarding relievers but they not only have to be exceptional, there can't be a really deserving starting pitcher. And Alcantara is deserving, at least as of now.

[Edgy MD]

I don't trust WAR for relievers, but I agree that he's not the Cy Young MVP.



But he's welcome to keep on doing what he's doing and try to change my mind.

[Ceetar]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=103242 time=1660100384 user_id=68]
And we have dumb stats like WPA which gives all of the credit to the batter who drove in the run, as if the batters who preceded him and got on base don't even exist.

[Edgy MD]

Yes, it's not true that WPA ignores the contributions of batters who reached base ahead of the batter who drove in the run.



I certainly disagree that it's not a statistic.

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's not even really a stat. And it's not an individual thing anyway, it's event-driven, and it's a team measurement.

So then why the WPA's for individual players? And is your comment even true? The total or team WPA in a specific game for the winning team should be one (1), no? And the total or team WPA in a specific game for the losing team should be zero (0), correct? So if WPA is a team stat, (which by the way, I've never seen) what would even be the point? Couldn't you just take a look at the team's overall W-L record to get the same info that team WPA for the season supposedly gives?

Obviously teams are more likely to win when they drive in a run from second than they are when they hit that double to begin with.

Except that there'd be no run without that "double to begin with". The batter that drove in the run couldn't have possibly done so without some previous batter getting on second base in the first place.



Two consecutive batters lead off an inning by each hitting ground rule doubles to produce a run. Check out their WPA's for those specific at-bats. The second batters' WPA is significantly - no, tremendously - higher. But the two batters did the exact same thing and each double was as equally valuable as the other -- not an iota more nor an iota less.



Another batter singles and on that single, the runner on first uses his extraordinary speed and baserunning skills to reach third base. The extra base taken by the baserunner is all on the runner. In fact, almost no other runner in all of MLB would have been able to get to third base on that particular batted ball. Yet WPA credits all of the so-called statistical gain from that extra base to the batter and none to the player already on base when the ball was struck.

[metsmarathon]

if it could be considered a possibility for edwin to win the cy young and the mvp this year, then jake sure as shit should have won both last year, having had, hr/9 aside, an even more bonkers year in twice as many innings.



that said, i do think that edwin should get more than a few votes in the cy young totalings.



but he'll have to get in line behind alcantara, rodon, fried, wheeler, nola, scherzer...

[batmagadanleadoff]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=103265 time=1660141779 user_id=68]
=Ceetar post_id=103256 time=1660104186 user_id=102]


It's not even really a stat. And it's not an individual thing anyway, it's event-driven, and it's a team measurement.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

Yes, WPA is a thing.

Two consecutive batters lead off an inning by each hitting ground rule doubles to produce a run. Check out their WPA's for those specific at-bats. The second batters' WPA is significantly - no, tremendously - higher. But the two batters did the exact same thing and each double was as equally valuable as the other -- not an iota more nor an iota less.

I tested this on the first case of back-to-back doubles to lead off an inning (I couldn't isolate for ground rule doubles, though I don't believe that should matter much) that I could find, and that was in https://www.fangraphs.com/boxscore.aspx?date=2022-08-08&team=Mariners&dh=0Monday's Yankees@Mariners tilt.



Josh Donaldson led off with a fly-ball double and added .046 WPA. Gleyber Torres followed with a double of his own, and added .053 WPA. ( Donaldson held to see if the ball would be caught and didn't score.)



For a little more context, Andrew Benitendi followed with a third double, plating both runners, and added .060 WPA.

[Ceetar]

you're overthinking it. https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/wpa.shtmlhttps://www.baseball-reference.com/about/wpa.shtml



First off, there's some "probability" that a team wins a game. all things equal, its' 50/50. A team has a 50% chance to win a game before it starts. Now, this not actually true, the Mets are much better than the Reds. They might have deGrom pitching, etc, but that's irrelevant here. This is player-independent. We're talking results. So the Mets, and deGrom, are liking going to end up much higher than 50% to win the game real fast, but that depends on outs.



So in your double example, yes, both doubles would have the same run expectancy. Based on millions of games, we know on average how many runs a team scores after a double. The thing here though is, that second double SCORED A RUN. So the chances a team wins when they hit a double, where the score after the play is 1-0 is OBVIOUSLY higher. We're not assessing how much _the player_ and his ability contributed to the ultimate win. We're assessing how much the _run scoring double_ contributed. Given all the run expectancy data we have, and run environments, we have a pretty good idea.



Obviously the specifics matter though. An average team might win say 95% of games they go into the 9th inning up 1-0.



The Mets, with Edwin Díaz (see, now we're on topic), are probably higher. So, while technically, someone might say "The Mets have a 95% chance of winning this game!". You could counter with "but we got Díaz . The Mets are better than that.



So take McNeil's home run in the bottom of the 4th last night. The Mets were about 80% to win that game at that point. Kind of makes sense. They're up 2 runs and the other team only has 15 outs to work with, and the Mets have 18 outs to work with. You spot a team 2 runs and give them 3 more outs, they're gonna win most of those games right? Now make it three, and you're up to 87%.



Now we go to the top of the 7th, Mets are up 4-0, but Cookie tires, gives up a 2-run home run, cutting the lead to two. WP drops from 94, to 86. That's 6% higher than the same 2-run lead in the 4th, obviously, because less outs. It keeps all the way down to 83% after the two singles. That's a tight situations, and Givens getting the K jumps it back up 6%. That's almost as much as the extra run McNeil added with his home run.



I think that last bit's helpful, trying to parse the important moments of a game. How huge was Givens getting the K there? It was pretty damn big right? I don't think anyone argues with that. This is estimating (again, this is probability. Just simply, this situation has happened 30,000 times and breaking down how many times teams win in that situation) that the Givens strikeout was almost as big a moment as that extra run.



Biggest moments last night, from a WPA standpoint.

18%, Lindor's 2R home run for the first runs.

-9% for Fraley's home run cutting the lead in half.

7% McNeil's home run making it 3-0.

7% Ruf's single making it 5-2 in b7.

6% Given's strikeout.

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

[whirrrr] [clunk] ... [thud] [whzzz...]



m.e....



[rattle] [squeak] [sound of key turning and spring straining]



[whirrrrrrrrrr]



m.e.t.b.o.t. is very dusty and may not operate properly for long. scavenged plastic gears from old vcrs and off-brand walkman knock-off portable cassette players do not last long when left on a shelf high above a basement playroom, with little humidity control. m.e.t.b.o.t. sincerely hopes that any subsequent period of inactivity can be met with a sealed anti-static bag and a small sachet of dessicant.



but intolerable suffering aside - which m.e.t.b.o.t. cannot actually experience but can only infer from observations of sentient organic life - m.e.t.b.o.t. is an ardent supporter of WPA.



this is likely because the only reason m.e.t.b.o.t. was ever wound up in the first place was to evaluate WPA strictly for the purposes of schaeffer voting, but ever since m.e.t.b.o.t. has been singing the praises of the insights into baseball that WPA provides. m.e.t.b.o.t. does not sing. m.e.t.b.o.t. will occasionally enter into a harmonic state whereby the imbalance of internal gears matches the natural frequency of the thin stamped-tin shell encasing the mixed bag of electromechanical odds and ends that allow m.e.t.b.o.t. to nominally operate, and thus produce an audible hum that has caused humans who are capable of doing so to leave the room. regardless, m.e.t.b.o.t. praises WPA.



WPA is not and should not be used to evaluate the skill of an individual. there are some who believe that by comparing WPA to the leverage of a situation a mathematician can gain insight into the stickiness...? grip...? no- clutchness of a player. but m.e.t.b.o.t. is particularly skeptical that such an evaluation has stood up to even rudimentary investigative rigor.



WPA tells about the outcome of events in the context of the game in which they happen.



in the game of yesterday, which was the most consequential play? it is likely obvious to a human viewer of baseball games that the home run hit by metropolitan shortstop francisco lindor which gave the metropolitans a three run lead in the third inning was the most consequential, as it increased the metropolitans chance of victory from 57.6% to 76.9%.



but the human viewer of baseball games may then ask oneself, what was more critical to victory - metropolitan pitcher michael givens striking out red centerfielder nick senzel with baserunners on first base and second base to end the eighth inning, or metropolitan pitcher trevor may striking out red pinch hitter alejo lopez with baserunners on first base, second base, and third base to end the ninth inning?



WPA informs the human and robotic evaluator of baseball games alike that metropolitan pitcher michael givens increased the metropolitan likelihood of victory from 84% to 90.2% given the current state of the game, for a 0.061 WPA, whereas metropolitan pitcher trevor may increased the metropolitan likelihood of victory from 94.7% to 99.1%, for a 0.044 WPA.



the events preceding these events lead to the probabilities added by the outcomes. however, although metropolitan pitcher trevor may in the course of the eighth inning caused the metropolitan likelihood of winning to decrease from 97.2% to 94.7% prior to pitching to red pinch hitter alejo lopez, this does not alter the mathematical fact that in gaining the out in that situation, the likelihood of winning the game then increased to 99.1%



in total, metropolitan reliever trevor may contributed 0.018 WPA, which would have been the case no matter the specific events within the inning so long as the starting and ending score were the same.



WPA can be infuriating in its subtleties, and it disguises as much as it elucidates. but it is the entire reason that m.e.t.b.o.t. persists to exist, neglect and decay not withstanding, and therefore m.e.t.bo.t. continues to regard it with what a creature capable of emotion and abstract thought might consider beauty.



[whirr...zz.... fzzt...]



[clunk] [sputter]

[m.e.t.b.o.t.]

m.e.t.b.o.t. laments that more thought has not been placed into WPA to properly tease out an xWPA or a FIWPA and considers that this is a ripe field of potential research should any soft-shelled hairless apes be looking to bolster a PhD resume.

[batmagadanleadoff]

WPA tells about the outcome of events in the context of the game in which they happen.

This is perfectly fine and as the stat should be used. But the stat is apportioned to individuals, where, as noted, the batter gets the disproportionate amount of the credit for the value of the event. So, you can look up player WPA and see, for example, that currently, Paul Goldschmidt leads the NL in WPA at 5.3. (Lindor is third at 3.1 and Marte is 5th at 2.6). Because that's how the stat is used, and understood by most fans -- as a tool to measure the value of individual and specific players, not events.



https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2022-batting-leaders.shtmlhttps://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2022-batting-leaders.shtml



And then I have to hear Gary Cohen drool over the stat. And he's not talking about "events" or "event-driven stats". He's talking about WPA as it's applied to individuals.