Yes, it's a self-serving post and awards aren't that important. But whatever formula selects the MVP candidates is simply flawed.

My example.

Omar Estrella

Plays a tough defensive position, catcher, with more than adequate skill, calling the best staff in the AL.
In 142 games, 555 PA, hits .342/.417/.695 for a 1.112 OPS. 2nd in the majors in OPS and he ranks 3rd in the majors in RC/27.
Plays in Monterrey, which is a slight hitters park but no Colorado.

Instead, we get 3 MVP candidates who all play 1B/COF with OPS marks of 1, 1.013 and 1.020.

As I said, not a big deal but clearly flawed and it shouldn't be hard to fix.

Maybe because he was a horrible catcher. 100 SB, 20 CS.

Madonna caught the high hard one better than him

Yeah, if the guy is terrible at his position then in my opinion it is impossible to use to argument "he plays a more difficult position." There was one year where I saw a guy with decent hitting stats up for Rookie of the Year, he played 2nd base but had the worst fielding numbers of any starting 2B in the majors. So he was essentially a LF in my eyes. Just because you stick a guy at a position he clearly shouldn't play doesn't mean he should be given more consideration by voters. Obviously this guy is a true catcher but if he sucked at it that year, in my mind he wasn't playing the position even close to what he would need to in order to justify it as an issue for MVP voting.

Quote: Originally posted by cademord on 3/20/2010Yes, it's a self-serving post and awards aren't that important.

admitting it doesn't make you any less self-serving.

Ok, but should playing a premium defensive position poorly (in one respect, SB% but I believe very well as evidenced by .OAV) negate .100 points of OPS AND the fact others players played far, far easier defensive positions with below-average performance as well?

As in, the player who hit 1.020 was a 1B whose - plays were more numerous than his + plays for example.

Quote: Originally Posted By cademord on 3/20/2010Ok, but should playing a premium defensive position poorly (in one respect, SB% but I believe very well as evidenced by .OAV) negate .100 points of OPS AND the fact others players played far, far easier defensive positions with below-average performance as well?

As in, the player who hit 1.020 was a 1B whose - plays were more numerous than his + plays for example

From your OP it sounds like his CERA was thanks to a great pitching staff. Should that number be relevent if he is catching 5 All Stars?

Same staff this year threw a 3.85 ERA compared to 4.99 ERA the year before, well with one pitcher being added. Either he or the pitchers improved, or both. But you don't make that kind of improvement without some kind of help from C, surely?

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally posted by cademord on 3/20/2010Same staff this year threw a 3.85 ERA compared to 4.99 ERA the year before, well with one pitcher being added. Either he or the pitchers improved, or both. But you don't make that kind of improvement without some kind of help from C, surely?

ERA has a lot of noise, especially a sample size as small as two seasons

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

the runs created theory seems to hold weight...i've always kind of presumed that the awards were pretty dependent on plate appearances and players who excelled but essentially played 20 or 30 less games were long shots...

Quote: Originally Posted By cademord on 3/20/2010Same staff this year threw a 3.85 ERA compared to 4.99 ERA the year before, well with one pitcher being added. Either he or the pitchers improved, or both. But you don't make that kind of improvement without some kind of help from C, surely

I assume much of this was due to the HR tweak. A lot of ERAs went down during those few months.