wins above playoffs, or, how to pick an MVP

[metsmarathon]

so, i was going to type up a tirade against the concept of "most valuable player" in that al cy young discussion. then i had an idea for a way to determine the MVP that attempts to distill what the voters mean when they say that "most valuable" nonsense, where "most valuable" does not mean "best"

"gee, i'd give it to him if the award were for the best player, but we're looking for the most valuable guy here."

and since it all comes down value = making the playoffs, i figured we need to look at what players most helped their teams make the playoffs. like, take player X off the team Y and they lose the division by N games.

so here's what we do. we look a the teams that made the playoffs, and how much they made the playoffs by. if they made the playoffs by twenty games, then i can take any player off that team and replace him with a "replacement player" and they still make the playoffs (so long as nobody reincarnates old hoss radbourn, he of the 19.8 WAR in 1884). if a team makes the playoffs by 10 games, then i can remove anyone with a WAR 9 and under and they still make the playoffs by a game. if i take a 10 WAR player off the team, they end up in a tie.

if a team fails to make the playoffs, then, really, none of the players on that team were valuable enough, and need to try harder next time.

so with that as my framework, lets give this a try in the al:

the rays made the playoffs by 8 games over the red sox. i can take any <7 WAR player off that team, and they still make the playoffs.
the yankees made the playoffs by 7 games. i can take any <6 WAR player off that team and they still make the playoffs.
the twins made hte playoffs by 6 games, and the rangers made the playoffs by 9 games.

since no other team made the playoffs, and especially since there were no close races, i've got some easy thresholds here.

per bbref, evan longoria was a 7.7 WAR player. i'll call him 0.7 WAP, or wins above playoffs.
robbie cano was a 6.1 WAR player, or 0.1 WAP.
josh hamilton was a 6.0 WAR player, but since the rangers won by 9, he's actaully a -2.0 WAP guy.
joe mauer comes in at 5.6 WAR, or 0.6 WAP, and is followed by justin morneau with his 0.4 WAP.
no pitchers come in at positive WAP, with liriano and pavano sharing the lead at -0.4, followed by cc's -0.6. price's -1.7 is terrible, and cj wilson's -3.4 is just shameful. cliff lee? well, jeez, all that time on the mariners. sorry guy.

so i've identified my MVP. evan longoria, by a smidge over joe mauer.

damnit. the wrong method yeilded the right result. what are the odds?


i'll hafta try again in the NL.

the phillies made the playoffs by 7 games (6 ahead of the braves, and 1 more ahead of the just-missed-the-wild-card padres). so any player <6 WAR can readily be replaced.
the braves made the playoffs by 1 game. the loss of any player with a positive WAR will cost them the playoffs. er, cast them into a tie. which is bad.
the reds also made the playoffs by 1 game.
the giants made the playoffs by 2 games, so they can only afford to lose players <1 WAR.

joey votto has a 6.2 WAR, and also a 6.2 WAP.
aubrey huff comes in at 5.9 WAR, but only 4.9 WAP.
jayson werth is a 5.2 WAR player, but, sadly, has a -0.8 WAP.
atlanta's brian mccann is a 4.9 WAR player, and also 4.9 WAP.
looking at the pitchers, roy halladay's 6.9 WAR is good for a mere 0.9 WAP.
tim hudson's 5.4 WAR nets him second place in the mvp standings with a matching 5.4 WAP.
matt cain's 3.9 WAR is good for 2.9 WAP.
and bronson arroyo leads the red charge with 2.3 WAR and WAP alike.

so joey votto, with the 5th highest WAR in the league (pujols 7.2, jiminez 7.1, halladay 6.9, gonzalez 6.3)is your "rightful" mvp.

discuss.

[Ceetar]

Works for me. i do wish they're iron out the "definition" of the award a little clearer so people were voting on the same thing.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metsmarathon wrote: discuss.

You had it right in the "head explodes" thread. The MVP is the best player. The best player is the MVP. That's how I'd vote if I had one.

[Chad ochoseis]

It gets even sillier, because if you really want to know who's "valuable", you'd also want to look at the team's actual replacement player. Jose Valentin was hugely valuable to the 2006 Mets, because he did a better than competent job when the alternatives were KazMat and Woodward.

Yeah, I say to forget about the word "valuable" and just give the award to the best player.

[HahnSolo]

I admire the effort that went into this.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

That's a whole lotta sweat for a demi-satirical thought exercise, Tycho Brah-e.

[Vic Sage]

i love this. and i've been saying it for years.

the fact is when the MVP was designed and named, it was a more genteel and literate age. Sportswriters waxed poetical. When they said "valuable", they simply meant "best", since how could the best player not be the most valuable one? The early MVP voting bears this out, too. It was only in later years that writers became overly narrow in their interpretation and started giving out the award primarily to the best players on the best teams, with fewer exceptions.

the notion that a player should be either rewarded or penalized because his teammates were great or terrible (beyond the rewards and penalties of winning and losing), and be discounted for INDIVIDUAL awards because his TEAM was inadequate, or be carried to INDIVIDUAL glory carried on the backs of superior teammates, is just lunacy. what is being honored then? "clutchness"? it doesn't exist. And if this is NOT the award for the best player, what is? the Hank Aaron? please.

[Vic Sage]

and just for the record, i had picked it as follows:

*AL MVP: Josh Hamilton / Miguel Cabrera / Evan Longoria
*NL MVP: Joey Votto / Albert Pujols / Carlos Gonzalez

So, i had picked Votto too, but i have no beef with Longoria over Hamilton.
I think your methodology got good results for less than good reasons.