Thought about this a bit more . Somehow they are overvaluing defense at 1B (and only seems to be a problem at 1B). Can't figure it out exactly as the formula weights for the MVP list are not known - but we know the following comprise the considerations: Runs Created, + plays, - plays, fld%, park factor, position difficulty, passed balls (catchers only).
So the bust is somewhere in either:
- the fielding % (a firstbaseman stands on a bag and catches a throw; artificially inflating his fileding %). Teams typically play their worst fielder at 1B. Playing a RF at 1B should not make him more valuable.
- position difficulty (Tom Tango uses -12.5 runs above replacement for 1B, -7.5 for LF/RF, etc.). Are reasonable values assigned for position difficulty? I would expect a 1B to RC a lot more runs for my team than I expect my SS to.
- effect +/- plays impact "runs saved". 1 + play can not = 1 "run saved". Pete Plamer assigns a linear weight of 0.50 runs to a single, 0.70 for a double, 1.00 for a triple, and 1.40 for a HR. The value of a plus play would be some factor between a triple to a single saved, i.e. a value less than 1.00 runs.
I'm all for incorporating defense into the equation for MVP but bottom line is that there is a bust at 1B.
For example
Corban O'Leary is not an MVP. He is OPS'ing under .800 at 1B, his RC27 is 4.87 (that is lower than the league average for 2B players!). However he currently ranks 4th on WIS's MVP list because he has 22 + plays and 0 errors at 1B. He isn't even the most valuable 1B in the league, let alone the 4th most valuable player. There are at least 4 other 1B in the league that an owner would rather have.
12/8/2011 3:05 PM (edited)