Tejada beats out A-Rod

[M2d]

the winning season was valued over the better stats. No comment from me. I just enjoyed watching them both play.

[Uston]

It's sad that Tejada won an MVP before Rodriguez, Jeter, and Garciaparra. All have had better years than Tejada had in 2002, and, in the case of Nomar in 1998 and ARod in almost every year of his career, it's not even close. At least ARod didn't lose this year because some halfwit reporter accidentally voted for Ivan Rodriguez, like in 1996.

[M2d]

Unfortunately, I don't see jeter winning one soon because of who he playes for. While he'll have the NY media on his side, he'll also be splitting votes with Giambi, Williams or any of the other superstars that George might sign. Garciaparra will have to have a monster year to win it (ala A-rod) because he's in the same divisiion as the Yankees. Sportswriters today give enough credence to being on a winning team that Nomar may lose out.
A-rod also suffers from this, but to an extreme. At least Nomar's teams are in the hunt through the all star break.
For one of these three to win it, they'll either have to be on a winning team (A-Rod, Nomar) or be so much better than his teammates (Jeter) that the writers can't help but give the award to him.
Tejada is a fine ballplayer and had a wonderful year, but I agree with most of america that his season wasn't as good as A-Rod. he is lucky, though, that he plays on a contender who doesn't really have that many other stars. Maybe A-rod will have a better chance next year when Eric Chavez puts together a full season and steals some votes from Miggy.

[Six_of_One]

When did it start, this ridiculous insistence that the MVP has to come from a good team? That immediately disqualifies most of the league from consideration. They ought to just change the name to "MVP of a playoff contender."

Given two players with roughly equal stats, I can see the argument for favoring the one coming from a contending team. But Tejada and A-Rod did not have roughly equal stats...not even close to that.

It is just as ridiculous as the year Sosa won MVP despite McGwire's 70 home runs, simply because the Cubs were barely good enough to sneak into the wild card spot and get swept out of the first round. This, despite the fact that McGwire was far superior to Sosa in pretty much every offensive category...so far superior that I couldn't imagine that anyone could possibly even consider Sosa for MVP, yet he won.

Now this twisted mode of thinking seems to be creeping into the voting for other awards as well...how else to account for the fact that Zito won the Cy Young over Pedro Martinez, who was better in every category except for wins (not even an important statistic for pitchers)?

It all just makes me very sad, because these awards have ceased to mean what they used to.

Six_of_One

[Boris]

Jeter will never win the MVP because he's not good enough. He is lucky to be a good ball player who plays for a big market team.

Also, Tejada was, without a doubt, the most valuable player to his team out of all the contenders. A-rod had a better season offensively, but Tejada helped his team win more games and was more effective in situations that mattered (at least during the regular season). It's unfortunate that A-rod plays on a mediocre team in a tough division but then again, he made the choice to go to Texas.

[B-Man]

Agreed. Anyone that thinks Tejada was more valuable than A-Rod doesn't have a clue. Tejada has better teammates than A-Rod, but the award is not called "most valuable player on a good team," it is called "Most Valuable Player." I can't believe anyone would argue that if Tejada and A-Rod switched teams, the A's would win fewer games and the Rangers would win more. Why punish A-Rod because his teammates suck?

This twisted thinking has also ruined the Cy Young award (see my post below on that). The AL Cy Young voting was bad, but this is just ridiculous. At least Zito was in the neighborhood of being as good as Pedro this year; Tejada isn't even close to as good as A-Rod.

[Uston]

I agree that Jeter is not good enough to win an MVP. He'll need for ARod to miss a significant number of games just to hit half as many HRs in a given year. Plus, he's regressed quite a bit since 1999. To say Jeter is merely "a good ball player" is a bit of an understatement, though.

Also, ARod was considerably better with runners on base and at his best with runners in scoring position. He was responsible for more wins than Tejada this season, despite the difference in the records of their teams. If ARod played for Oakland, the A's would have scored more runs and given up less runs (defensive metrics show that ARod is by far the best of the Nomar, Tejada, Jeter, ARod group).

[Clarkmeister]

I am a bigger fan of the Cardinals than of any other sports team. That said, Sammy deserved the MVP.

It isn't new that team success matters in the award. And it should, hence the Most Valuable Player. Does that mean a player on a last place team can't win? No, however it does mean that they need to dwarf their competition.

Sammy had better stats than Mark in several key categories and he singlehandedly carried a mediocre team into the playoffs. I, too would have voted for Sammy.

1998
Sammy .308 BA, 66 HR, 158 RBI, 134R, 198H, .377OBP, .647SLG.
Mac .299 BA, 70HR, 147 RBI, 130 R, 152H, .470OBP, .752SLG.
Bonds .303 BA, 37HR, 122RBI, 120 R, 167H, .438OBP, .609SLG.
(threw in Bonds for fun)

Mac had more HR and Sammy had more of everything else. Sammy deserved it.

[JustSomeJackass]

good post--my sentiments exactly

[JustSomeJackass]

I was born and raised in St. Louis and like you are a huge fan of the Redbirds...and I have to agree that the voters were right in voting Sosa the MVP... Big Mac was named Player of the Year, and a host of other honors, and ended up either #3 or #4 (can't remember) in a vote of baseball's greatest moments (announced during game 3 of the World Series, in front of a SF Giant crowd chanting "Barry, barry"...how uncomfortable a situation for Mac, but that's another topic)... the main difference between Sosa and Tejada is the supporting cast... Sosa was the whole team... Tejada had a great supporting cast, including top notch pitching. As my friend DC would say, A-Rod got jewed.

[Clarkmeister]

He doesn't have to have a better year than those players had in years past. He only has to have a better year in this year. I know you know this, but it sounds like you are falling into the trap of the "career achievement MVP" ala Barkley and Malone.

That said, I think that it is close. Tejada hit for a better average and had nearly as many RBI as ARod. Only in HR was there a big difference. This while singlehandedly winning many games with dramatic 9th inning heroics while in a dramatic 4 team race for 2 playoff spots.

This is different than the Cy Young, which is clearly the "Best Pitcher of the Year" award. The MVP does factor in winning, as it should. It is the amount that winning should matter that is up for debate. I didn't mind Dawson winning it in last place, but if there had been ANY real competition, he would have been in trouble, as ARod found out this year. Tejada's year wasn't quite as good as ARod's, but his numbers are still awesome.

At the very least it is close. To say ARod got robbed is unfair to Tejada IMO. In fact, I would be OK with ARod winning it also. I think its a coin flip.

I just thank god it wasn't Soriano. Giambi had WAY better numbers in every category than Soriano, yet finished behind him in the voting. Makes you wonder what the voters are looking at.

[HDPM]

"As my friend DC would say, A-Rod got jewed."

Can't we avoid slurs like this?

that is a very superficial analysis. for one thing the tremendous advantage mcgwire has in OBP and SLG far outweighs the small advantages sammy has in the other categories. sammy made about 100 more outs and played in a bandbox. by rbi opportunities mcgwire was a great deal better than sammy, as he drove in a higher percentage of available rbi. by runs created mcgwire created 165 runs and set a record (at the time) with 162 walks. with RISP mcgwire's OBP was .473 and slg was .894; sosa was .388 and .642. i dont think it was even close, mcgwire was heads and shoulders better than sammy.

Pat

[M2d]

here are the numbers:
Tejada
Games 162
Runs 108
Hits 204
HR 34
RBI 131
BA .308
SLG .508

A-Rod
Games 162
Runs 125
Hits 187
HR 57
RBI 142
BA .300
SLG .623

The numbers are closer than you think.

i agree 100%.A-Rod batted .300-.391-.623 with 133 runs scored. Tejada obp only .353 and slugging a measly .507 with 107 runs scored. tejada probably isnt even a top five player, bernie williams is a better candidate than he is. there must be some reason to screw a-rod because he should have multiple MVP's already, has a good shot at 800 homers and other guys have won on teams just as bad as his.

Pat

[Clarkmeister]

Wrigley is not as easy to hit HR's in as you seem to think.

Look, he scored more runs, drove in more runs and hit for a higher average. While OBP and SLG are nice, I feel the best that Mac can claim is about an equivalent season to Sammy, and maybe not even that.

However, even if I conceded that Mac had a better year (which I don't), there is no way that it is enough of a better year to overcome the fact that Sammy singlehandedly dragged the Cubs kicking and screaming into the playoffs. Sammy's season was in my mind the defininition of an MVP year.

[Six_of_One]

I still maintain that Mac's year was so far above Sammy's that you can't really compare the two. Sammy had small advantages in a few relatively unimportant statistical categories. Mac had ENORMOUS advantages in the most important categories, OBP and Slugging %. In my opinion, those advantages far outweigh the small differences in Sammy's favor in a few of the other areas.

[Clarkmeister]

Sorry, but the game is about scoring runs, not about total bases. No way can I agree that Slugging and OBP are more important than Runs and RBI. It certainly isn't open and shut. I'd be interested in seeing what others think.

[Six_of_One]

Are you looking at the same numbers that I am?

I see a clear advantage for A-Rod, especially in the huge difference in slugging percentage. Also, you left out OBP, which is a much more meaningful stat than batting average. In OBP, A-Rod wins .393 to .351, if I remember correctly.

Not to mention 57 home runs to 34, though of course that is already reflected in the slugging percentage.

[Six_of_One]

I know my view is the minority opinion, but hopefully I'm not the only one who feels this way /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

I know that a player's speed influences runs scored, but I believe that it is largely determined by the success of those hitting later in the lineup, and therefore in my opinion is not particularly important in determining a player's value. Similarly, RBI's rely a great deal upon the ability of those hitting earlier in the lineup to get on base.

The way I see it, both of those statistics rely too much on one's teammates to be considered a reliable measure of individual skill.

I believe that the game IS about total bases, and scoring runs is a by-product of that.

[M2d]

As you mentioned, the HR numbers make up a large part of the difference in the slugging average.
I've already stated that I think either would have been a fine choice, but here are my rebuttals:
OBP: not as big a deal as you make it out to be. Of course, higher is better, but, in the positions that each are in with their teams, it isn't a huge part of why they're drawing their salaries. Both players are paid to drive in and score runs. both did so. Taken from an individual standpoint, A-Rod's ability to draw walks is actually a non factor. After he gets on, who's going to bring him around?

Also, the sheer number of HR's hit isn't a true reflection of value. In Bonds' case, I'd suggest that his value is vastly overrated based on performance since so many of his homeruns are solo shots in blowouts (not to say that he doesn't make up for this value in other ways; he's certainly the best hitter in the game right now).
How many of A-Rod's blasts helped his team? I don't know. I didn't follow the rangers, so I can't even get a feel for that. I'm certain, though that Tejada had numerous homeruns and hits that truly counted.
Bottom line, as before, is that Tejada did have a great year. If you want to look for precedent of snubbing the better numbers year for the better record, look no further than Ted Williams.

[Uston]

I just found it interesting that Tejada would win an MVP before Nomar, Jeter, and ARod. Who would have predicted that a few years ago? I'll also find it interesting if ARod hits 700 HRs as a shortstop without ever winning the MVP.

More than home runs seperate ARod and Tejada. You can't disregard walks and OBP. The most important thing a batter can do is not make outs. It's that simple.

BTW, how many walk-off HRs did Tejada have? And if he was that clutch, why would he only hit .143 in the playoffs?

Soriano got more votes than Giambi because he plays second base, which is exactly how it should be.

[Uston]

Sorry, but the game is about scoring runs, not about total bases. No way can I agree that Slugging and OBP are more important than Runs and RBI.

Do you think that there would be a positive, linear relationship between slugging percentage and RBI? Between OBP and runs? How could there not be? Runs and RBI dependent on the abilities of your teammates, which would explain why Johnny Damon scored more runs that Barry Bonds and why Troy Glaus would knock in more runs than Bonds.

[M2d]

For the Bonds case, I'd suggest that there is a negative correlation between OBP and RBI.

[B-Man]

Clarkmeister,

I used to feel exactly the same way you do about runs & RBIs vs. OPB and slugging, but the more I have read on the subject, and the more I thought about it, I came to agree with the views of Rob Neyer, Bill James and the "modern" baseball writers. RBI and runs are hugely dependent on the other batters in the lineup; OPS isn't, except to the extent that a batter sees different pitches because of the hitters around him. There is an impact there, but it is far less impact than having excellent (or terrible) hitters in front or behind a particular batter.

Scoring runs is definitely what hitting is all about; I just happen to think that if you want to measure the true value of a batter, and isolate how well he performed vs. got help from teammates, that OBP and slugging are better indicators than runs and RBI.

I'm not saying that stats like batting average, home runs, RBI and runs should be ignored (sometimes it seems like wreiters such as Rob Neyer think OPS is the only stat), but I think you also have to consider percentages.

By the way, as you might have guessed, Babe Ruth is the all-time leader in OPS, slightly ahead of Ted Williams (Ruth had better slugging, Williams better OBP, combined Ruth is slightly ahead). Those two are generally considered the two greatest hitters of all time. Note that they are NOT first and second in runs or RBI (well, Ruth is second in RBI). I think totals are certainly relevant, but OPS tells a big part of the picture, too.

[MCS]

It's total nonsense. Baseball writers must have less understanding of their "field of expertise" than any other type of writer on Earth. McGwire was also clearly the best choice for MVP a few years ago.

I also agree that the "got jewed" expression is unacceptable.

[Glenn]

They had a piece on ESPN today about this and they brought up some good points so here they are mixed in with a few of my own observations.

1. Historically, MVP has been given to the best player on a good team. Only three players on losing teams have won the MVP or somthing like that. So to say they are screwing it up is wrong. There are other awards. MVP has, since its inception, been given to the best player on a good team unless there was some enormous standout.

2. The arguement that Tejada wasn't clutch because of the playoffs is silly. First off, voting is done before the playoffs, so unless the reporters were fortune tellers they can't consider this. Secondly, Tejada hit .375 with runners in scoring position for the season.

3. ARod's park was a factor. The Rangers have the best hitters park in the league. The A's play in a park with a lower than average park factor as rated by total baseball. ARod hit ~.270 on the road with 23 hr's. Tejada hit something like .320 with 18 hr's. It is closer than it looks on the surface.

The poster who said what's important is that Soriano didn't get it was right. Tejada had a great year. ARod is a much better player. It was a tossup between the two. Hopefully ARod will get one soon.

rbi is very much dependent on opportunity. runs are to a lesser extent dependent on the lineup. OBP and SLG are mostly dependent on the players skill. they are not "more important" since "importance" is not teh right yardstick. they are more relevant and more evaluative significance for teh simple reason that rbi are too greatly dependent on variables other than a players skill.

if you look at mcgwire and sammy the fact is that mcgwire drove in a much higher percentage of available runs and if he had as many opprtunities as sammy would have greatly exceeded him.

Pat

[IrishHand]

This debate over runs/RBI vs. OBP and SLG is pretty ridiculous. They're both highly dependant on the other players on your team. However, they're also both excellent indicators of performance (as with most baseball stats - no one will do). I will look at each in turn.

Runs/RBI
True - you can't get RBI if you don't have teammates on. True - it's tough to score runs if your teammates don't knock you home. However, if you actually look at the differences in potential teammates from one team to another, it really isn't that significant. The difference between .250 and .300 - as noted in a celebrated baseball movie - is 50 hits a year. If they guy's batting ahead of you, and you're a .300 hitter, that means (not a perfect statistical analysis, but it'll make the point) 15 more times that you'll get a hit when he's on base ahead of you. On average, a runner spends 66% of his time on first, and we'll assume that the other 33% of the time he's on 1st or 2nd and will score automatically on your hit. That means that over the course of a full season, a .300 hitter will get about 5 more RBIs if the guy ahead of him is a .300 instead of .250 hitter. Those extra opportunities, of course, will decrease as the player gets further ahead of him in the order (more chance for intervening hitters to end the innning). The runs analysis works the same way. Essentially, it's important to remember that the difference from one teammate to the next isn't that extreme unless you're looking at Bonds v. the light-hitting catcher who keeps you company on the days you're DHing. Again, I realize this is a generalized statistical analysis, but I'm confident that it would play out pretty closely in practice.

OBS/SLG
The exact same factors noted above affect this number. The pitches you get directly influence your performance. Guys who bat ahead of monsters tend to have a dramatic increase in performance - I wish I could find this article I read once about this exact point. It essentially stated that batting ahead of someone who finished in the top 10 in MVP voting was worth over 50 points to BA, OBS and SLG (I think the numbers was closer to 50, 75 and 100, but I'll remain conservative in deference to my failing mind). It follows naturally that there would be a similar effect when you went from batting in front of McGwire to batting in front of Slappy McWhiff - with the notable exception being that if you're a good hitter, you'll almost surely walk a lot more in front of Slappy. The reasons for this are long. You get far better (re. fastballs down the pipe) pitches batting in front of a monster. Better still, if the pitcher gets behind in the count, you're even more likely to get those floaters. Prehaps most importantly, baseball is as much about confidence as anything else, and a pitcher is naturally less confident about facing 2 good hitters in a row. Basically, there are so many variables going into what happens anytime 1 guy is at the plate that you can't take a look at any stat and say "that's a reflection of him and him alone."

How does this relate to the present MVP debate? Well - history has shown us that the voters do, as noted above, consider the MVP award a recognition for a great player on a winning team. Tejada fits that bill to a 'T', as did Giambi, and as did - to a lesser extent - Soriano. There was a glut of hisotically qualified MVP candidates out there. There was no reason to give it to A-Rod simply because his numbers looked prettier. Kirk Gibson in 1988 had far inferior numbers to many other potential MVPs, but his effect on his team combined with excellent stats earned him the trophy.

[Uston]

2. The arguement that Tejada wasn't clutch because of the playoffs is silly. First off, voting is done before the playoffs, so unless the reporters were fortune tellers they can't consider this. Secondly, Tejada hit .375 with runners in scoring position for the season.

It's not nearly as silly as implying that he's clutch because of a couple of ninth inning home runs in a 162 game season. If clutch hitting is really a skill, shouldn't it be repeatable? Ichiro won the MVP last year largely because of his insane numbers with men in scoring position. Not only could he not repeat that "skill" this year, his numbers were worse with men on base. I didn't mean to bash Tejada by citing his horrendous postseason numbers. I meant to show that numbers in specific situations are due more to luck and small sample sizes than skill.

[Boris]

you must be kidding me. the mvp always goes to player on a contending team. The Rangers are mediocre, Tejada is a very good baseball player and he carried his team offensively for the entire month of August. That's why he got the MVP and A-Rod didn't. everybody knows A-Rod is the best player in baseball. But the MVP award is not about who is the best player. That might be what you want, but that's not what the award is about. The MVP is for the player who contributes the most to a winning ball club.

[B-Man]

the mvp always goes to player on a contending team.

First of all, thats not true. It has gone to players on teams with losing records, and I believe a player on a last-place team even won it (Andre Dawson?).

Second of all, even if that was true, your logic is flawed. Just because something is usually done, that doesn't mind it ought to be done; to paraphrase the great Justice Cardozo, "What is usually done may be evidence of what ought to be done, but what ought to be done is fixed by a standard of reasonable prudence, whether it usually is complied with or not."

The MVP is for the player who contributes the most to a winning ball club.

Show me where that is written. Just because old-time writers have historically awarded the MVP in that manner, that doesn't make it correct. It should go to the most valuable player. There is no way any player in the AL was more valuable than A-Rod this year.

[M2d]

I don't have the exact text, but I'm pretty sure that the voting instructions mention that consideration should go to players who contribute to the efforts of a winning team.

[IrishHand]

There is no way any player in the AL was more valuable than A-Rod this year.

Again, it all comes down to how you define "value." To me, value relates to the benefits relative to the costs. A-Rod might have broken even. If you ask pretty well any GM which of those two he'd have wanted on his team, you'd get 100% of GMs in favor of Tejada. In fact, I'm positive that there are a ton of teams that wouln't take A-Rod if he were offered in trade for the ball-boy's autograph.

This of course raises the related question - is it unfair to, in a sense, penalize A-Rod because of his contract? Certainly not - he signed it, he benefits from it, and he should get to deal with the appropriate expectations.