 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Check This Out! » Did my guy get robbed of MVP?
don4593
My team finished 2nd in the A.L. while the other 2 guys who went 1 - 2 finished 1st in the A.L.
http://simbaseball.com/allstars.jsp?leagueid=421
[url=http://simbaseball.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=6961393]Chan Berger (finished 3rd in voting)[/url]
121 runs - 41 hrs - 120 rbis - 27 sb - .881 ops - 272 average
[url=http://simbaseball.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=7259827]Oscar Benard ("won" MVP)[/url]
106 runs - 26 hrs - 112 rbis - 33 sb - .829 ops - 280 average
[url=http://simbaseball.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=6992223]Paul Smith, finished 2nd in voting[/url]
82 runs - 28 hrs - 97 rbis - 27 sb (cs 16) - .864 ops - 290 average
Did my guy get robbed of MVP?
August 15, 2010 at 03:34PM View BBCode
Chan Berger got robbed of the A.L. MVP.My team finished 2nd in the A.L. while the other 2 guys who went 1 - 2 finished 1st in the A.L.
http://simbaseball.com/allstars.jsp?leagueid=421
[url=http://simbaseball.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=6961393]Chan Berger (finished 3rd in voting)[/url]
121 runs - 41 hrs - 120 rbis - 27 sb - .881 ops - 272 average
[url=http://simbaseball.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=7259827]Oscar Benard ("won" MVP)[/url]
106 runs - 26 hrs - 112 rbis - 33 sb - .829 ops - 280 average
[url=http://simbaseball.com/player.jsp?player=nobody&mode=stats&id=6992223]Paul Smith, finished 2nd in voting[/url]
82 runs - 28 hrs - 97 rbis - 27 sb (cs 16) - .864 ops - 290 average
tworoosters
The formula for MVPs is (Hits * 1.5) + 2B + 3B + (HR * 2.5) + (RBI * 2.5) + BB + (Runs * 2) + SB + Average Bonuses + Team Bonus + League Leader Bonus + Player Bonus + Monster Stat Bonus.
Average Bonus is +/-2 points per pct above/below .300 AVG, +/-1.25 points per pct above/below .400 OBP and +/-1.5 points per pct above/below .475 SLG.
For Team Bonus, you get +150 within 5 games of making the playoffs, +60 for 90 Wins, +100 for 100 Wins, and +115 for 115 Wins, if in first place you get games ahead *2, if more than 10 games back of 1st place then games back *-2, +/-20 points for each spot in the standings your team improved/declined verses the previous season.
For League Leader Bonus, you get 10 points for leading the league in HR, RBI, or AVG and 5 points for leading the league in SB or Runs. The Player Bonus, you get a Defensive position bonus SS(190), C(185), 2B(130), RF(140), 3B(30), CF(30), if the player is new to the team this season you get +50, if the player previously won the MVP you get -100.
The Monster Stat bonus, you get 1 point per HR if you hit 50 or more HRs, .333 per RBI if you get 140 or more RBI, and 1 point per SB if you steal 50 or more bases.
This formula has issues but any formula that attempts to determine the MVP is going to have issues, we have enough trouble defining "most valuable" as opposed to "best hitter", but this formula has done an admirable job of reflecting how MLB has chosen MVPs .
August 15, 2010 at 03:50PM View BBCode
I'm not going to do the math but here's the MVP formula:The formula for MVPs is (Hits * 1.5) + 2B + 3B + (HR * 2.5) + (RBI * 2.5) + BB + (Runs * 2) + SB + Average Bonuses + Team Bonus + League Leader Bonus + Player Bonus + Monster Stat Bonus.
Average Bonus is +/-2 points per pct above/below .300 AVG, +/-1.25 points per pct above/below .400 OBP and +/-1.5 points per pct above/below .475 SLG.
For Team Bonus, you get +150 within 5 games of making the playoffs, +60 for 90 Wins, +100 for 100 Wins, and +115 for 115 Wins, if in first place you get games ahead *2, if more than 10 games back of 1st place then games back *-2, +/-20 points for each spot in the standings your team improved/declined verses the previous season.
For League Leader Bonus, you get 10 points for leading the league in HR, RBI, or AVG and 5 points for leading the league in SB or Runs. The Player Bonus, you get a Defensive position bonus SS(190), C(185), 2B(130), RF(140), 3B(30), CF(30), if the player is new to the team this season you get +50, if the player previously won the MVP you get -100.
The Monster Stat bonus, you get 1 point per HR if you hit 50 or more HRs, .333 per RBI if you get 140 or more RBI, and 1 point per SB if you steal 50 or more bases.
This formula has issues but any formula that attempts to determine the MVP is going to have issues, we have enough trouble defining "most valuable" as opposed to "best hitter", but this formula has done an admirable job of reflecting how MLB has chosen MVPs .
WillyD
August 20, 2010 at 10:16PM View BBCode
I'm in the Nellie Fox League with you. Berger defintely got robbed. Bernard won because he was a RF and hadn't won it before. Although your guy Berger is a RF too, he won a MVP previously, and as I understand it, that hurt him.
vurbil
August 21, 2010 at 08:16AM View BBCode
Yeah, I think we will need to take another look at this formula at some point. Winning previously might edge you out of a close race, but those numbers aren't even close. It's clear, at least to me, that if it was real MLB Berger would be the winner.
barterer2002
And Willy, saying that "Bernard won because he was a RF" is just a total misrepresentation of the formula, especially when the other player in question is also a RF.
August 21, 2010 at 11:41AM View BBCode
Looking at the stats Berger appears better so there must be something else in play that isn't being told. Did Cleveland make a huge jump in the standings?And Willy, saying that "Bernard won because he was a RF" is just a total misrepresentation of the formula, especially when the other player in question is also a RF.
WillyD
Hey Bart, did you not read my entire post? Maybe you should read it again? Btw, Cleveland had been in the playoffs the previous year.
Berger defintely got robbed. Bernard won because he was a RF and hadn't won it before. Although your guy Berger is a RF too, he won a MVP previously, and as I understand it, that hurt him.
August 21, 2010 at 03:02PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Looking at the stats Berger appears better so there must be something else in play that isn't being told. Did Cleveland make a huge jump in the standings?
And Willy, saying that "Bernard won because he was a RF" is just a total misrepresentation of the formula, especially when the other player in question is also a RF.
Hey Bart, did you not read my entire post? Maybe you should read it again? Btw, Cleveland had been in the playoffs the previous year.
Berger defintely got robbed. Bernard won because he was a RF and hadn't won it before. Although your guy Berger is a RF too, he won a MVP previously, and as I understand it, that hurt him.
tworoosters
Berger has far better stats but loses 100 points as a previous winner, maybe too high , Benard gets big points because his team won the league, won over 100 games and won by 14 games.
The 14 games in the standings are a 56 point swing right there, add in Cleveland's 100+ wins vs. KVC's 90+ and the previous MVP deduction and there is a swing of almost 200 points .
What were the final MVP voting totals ??
August 21, 2010 at 05:22PM View BBCode
Look it's pretty easy to figure out why someone won, just run the numbers .Berger has far better stats but loses 100 points as a previous winner, maybe too high , Benard gets big points because his team won the league, won over 100 games and won by 14 games.
The 14 games in the standings are a 56 point swing right there, add in Cleveland's 100+ wins vs. KVC's 90+ and the previous MVP deduction and there is a swing of almost 200 points .
What were the final MVP voting totals ??
barterer2002
August 21, 2010 at 05:29PM View BBCode
Yeah I read your post. To say that he won because he was a RF is just wrong. Nobody ever wins simply because they're a RF even if they haven't won before. I have seen no evidence that Rightfielders are winning more MVPs in SD that they should and yet comments like the one you made indicate that there is a belief that there is. Show me the facts that say that RFs are winning more MVPs than they should, show me the facts that support your claim and I'll accept it. Until then I will dispute it.
barterer2002
Firstbase 28
Rightfield 20
Pitcher 19
Leftfield 18
Catcher 14
Thirdbase 14
Centerfield 13
Shortstop 11
Secondbase 10
DH 1
I'll go grab some data from my leagues to see where we are in relation
August 21, 2010 at 05:54PM View BBCode
For reference since 1931 in MLB here are the breakdown of positionsFirstbase 28
Rightfield 20
Pitcher 19
Leftfield 18
Catcher 14
Thirdbase 14
Centerfield 13
Shortstop 11
Secondbase 10
DH 1
I'll go grab some data from my leagues to see where we are in relation
barterer2002
Rightfield 10
Shortstop 9
Centerfield 9
Thirdbase 5
Secondbase 5
Firstbase 4
catcher 2
leftfield 1
It'll take me a little longer to pull data from my other leagues but feel free to post all data here so we have a base to compare from
August 21, 2010 at 05:56PM View BBCode
Pulled the AML data first. CUrrently playing 1973 so we've hadRightfield 10
Shortstop 9
Centerfield 9
Thirdbase 5
Secondbase 5
Firstbase 4
catcher 2
leftfield 1
It'll take me a little longer to pull data from my other leagues but feel free to post all data here so we have a base to compare from
WillyD
After looking at this list it seems like MVP's come from positions that are traditionally hitting first, fielding second. In SimD better hitters tend to be at those positions more often than at more traditional defensive positions, although maybe not as much as in MLB. So why then do we give a high bonus to RF's and not to 1B & LF?
Lets give a small bonus to C, 3B, 2B, and SS to act as a tiebreaker in close races, and take away the large bonus to RF's. The big hitters should win MVPs regardless of where they play. If a SS beats out a RF or 1B, great! He had a year better or close enough of one to be the MVP considering where he played.
August 21, 2010 at 06:34PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
For reference since 1931 in MLB here are the breakdown of positions
Firstbase 28
Rightfield 20
Pitcher 19
Leftfield 18
Catcher 14
Thirdbase 14
Centerfield 13
Shortstop 11
Secondbase 10
DH 1
I'll go grab some data from my leagues to see where we are in relation
After looking at this list it seems like MVP's come from positions that are traditionally hitting first, fielding second. In SimD better hitters tend to be at those positions more often than at more traditional defensive positions, although maybe not as much as in MLB. So why then do we give a high bonus to RF's and not to 1B & LF?
Lets give a small bonus to C, 3B, 2B, and SS to act as a tiebreaker in close races, and take away the large bonus to RF's. The big hitters should win MVPs regardless of where they play. If a SS beats out a RF or 1B, great! He had a year better or close enough of one to be the MVP considering where he played.
barterer2002
SS 24
2B 24
3B 12
1B 12
RF 9
C 8
LF 7
CF 6
Its a little heavy to the middle infield at the expense of the OF
August 21, 2010 at 06:45PM View BBCode
OK here are the numbers from the HCL. I went back 50 years as I'm not sure where we were when the MVP formula changedSS 24
2B 24
3B 12
1B 12
RF 9
C 8
LF 7
CF 6
Its a little heavy to the middle infield at the expense of the OF
tworoosters
August 21, 2010 at 06:51PM View BBCode
The, relatively, new catcher games played thingy has pretty much eliminated catchers from SIM MVPs but then they don't win them in MLB either so that's probably a good thing.
WillyD
This is probably because of the fact that it's too easy to covert players to 2B and then SS. One more reason to fix that.
August 21, 2010 at 06:51PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
OK here are the numbers from the HCL. I went back 50 years as I'm not sure where we were when the MVP formula changed
SS 24
2B 24
3B 12
1B 12
RF 9
C 8
LF 7
CF 6
Its a little heavy to the middle infield at the expense of the OF
This is probably because of the fact that it's too easy to covert players to 2B and then SS. One more reason to fix that.
barterer2002
its an interesting conclusion but I'm not sure its factual. 1B certainly is where you put big hitters that don't field well but a RF needs to be pretty 5 tool. If you have a slow guy in the OF you put him in LF. If you have a guy that can't throw you put him in LF. If you have a fast guy that can't catch the ball he goes in LF. RF tends to have the strongest arms in the outfield so I'd say that it tends to be the outfield position that teams look at defense most on, not least.
And obviously pitcher is something we can throw out for SD.
I might even contend that LF is skewed due to Barry Bonds with his 7 MVPs there (which is 4 more than any other player has at 1 position)
In short, I'm not convinced that your contention that MLB favors offensive positions without regard to defense is actually true. Offense is clearly favored but I don't think its as much as you think it is.
August 21, 2010 at 06:53PM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
Originally posted by barterer2002
For reference since 1931 in MLB here are the breakdown of positions
Firstbase 28
Rightfield 20
Pitcher 19
Leftfield 18
Catcher 14
Thirdbase 14
Centerfield 13
Shortstop 11
Secondbase 10
DH 1
I'll go grab some data from my leagues to see where we are in relation
After looking at this list it seems like MVP's come from positions that are traditionally hitting first, fielding second.
its an interesting conclusion but I'm not sure its factual. 1B certainly is where you put big hitters that don't field well but a RF needs to be pretty 5 tool. If you have a slow guy in the OF you put him in LF. If you have a guy that can't throw you put him in LF. If you have a fast guy that can't catch the ball he goes in LF. RF tends to have the strongest arms in the outfield so I'd say that it tends to be the outfield position that teams look at defense most on, not least.
And obviously pitcher is something we can throw out for SD.
I might even contend that LF is skewed due to Barry Bonds with his 7 MVPs there (which is 4 more than any other player has at 1 position)
In short, I'm not convinced that your contention that MLB favors offensive positions without regard to defense is actually true. Offense is clearly favored but I don't think its as much as you think it is.
WillyD
MVPs are won on offensive stats. Until the last few decades in MLB, The best hitters were typically in the OF or at 1B. I know you can rattle of a bunch of great hitters from other positions, but those were the exception rather than the rule.
August 21, 2010 at 06:59PM View BBCode
Since when is RF a defensive position? RF is typically a place you put the guy that can throw but can't catch or run that well. The arm is a bonus not necessarily a requirement for RF. We've had a handful of great hitters in RF who won some MVPs because of the bat, not defense. Clemente's defense helped, but so did his very high batting averages!MVPs are won on offensive stats. Until the last few decades in MLB, The best hitters were typically in the OF or at 1B. I know you can rattle of a bunch of great hitters from other positions, but those were the exception rather than the rule.
WillyD
In short, while defensive ability may deterine where you play, offensive ability determines MVPs. If you can put up huge numbers at a more defensive minded position like SS or 2B than you have an advantage over an OF. How much, I don't know. We may want to analyze the MLB MVP races more closely.
August 21, 2010 at 07:21PM View BBCode
Anyone happen to notice that the top MVP position spots are also where a higher percentage of lefties play? Most of our greatest hitters were left-handed: Ruth, Gehrig, Musial, Cobb, Williams, Sisler, Mize, Bonds, Gwynn, & Griffey. I could go on forever with great hitting lefties who played 1B and/or OF.In short, while defensive ability may deterine where you play, offensive ability determines MVPs. If you can put up huge numbers at a more defensive minded position like SS or 2B than you have an advantage over an OF. How much, I don't know. We may want to analyze the MLB MVP races more closely.
barterer2002
You're confusing RF in the major leagues with RF in little league. It isn't the same at all. In MLB RFs aren't the guys that can't throw or run, they're usually the best player on the team. Aaron, Ruth, Crawford, et al were always the best player on the field when they played. Offensively yes but also defensively, recently you've got Guerrero, Canseco, Dawson, Walker, and Sosa who could all field as well as hit. The guys who can't field (Think of the Red Sox line, Williams, Yaz, Rice, Ramirez or Bonds or Rickey Henderson or Lonnie Smith) go into LF
August 21, 2010 at 07:31PM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyD
Since when is RF a defensive position? RF is typically a place you put the guy that can throw but can't catch or run that well. The arm is a bonus not necessarily a requirement for RF. We've had a handful of great hitters in RF who won some MVPs because of the bat, not defense. Clemente's defense helped, but so did his very high batting averages!
MVPs are won on offensive stats. Until the last few decades in MLB, The best hitters were typically in the OF or at 1B. I know you can rattle of a bunch of great hitters from other positions, but those were the exception rather than the rule.
You're confusing RF in the major leagues with RF in little league. It isn't the same at all. In MLB RFs aren't the guys that can't throw or run, they're usually the best player on the team. Aaron, Ruth, Crawford, et al were always the best player on the field when they played. Offensively yes but also defensively, recently you've got Guerrero, Canseco, Dawson, Walker, and Sosa who could all field as well as hit. The guys who can't field (Think of the Red Sox line, Williams, Yaz, Rice, Ramirez or Bonds or Rickey Henderson or Lonnie Smith) go into LF
WillyD
Boston is a bad example, because in Fenway Park LF is so small in terms of area and RF is huge. So obviously you put a better fielder there.
[Edited on 8-21-2010 by WillyD]
August 21, 2010 at 07:40PM View BBCode
First of all your best defensive guy in the OF is in CF. Speed is the most important attribute in the OF. Mantle, Mays, Griffey, Hunter, Puckett, Dawson (in his younger days), were examples of guys who could do it all at CF. Right field is where some CF's go to die, because they have lost a step or two and teams have a younger faster guy to put in CF because that is the most important position in the outfiled. Or guys that can throw and run but not field that well. Some of the guys mentioned above played CF but were moved to RF because that team they played on had a better defensive guy to stick in CF.Boston is a bad example, because in Fenway Park LF is so small in terms of area and RF is huge. So obviously you put a better fielder there.
[Edited on 8-21-2010 by WillyD]
barterer2002
You've got to get out of the little league mindset where the worst player goes to RF because none of the hitters hit it there, in MLB RF has to have a good arm at a mimimum. Someone like Barry Bonds or Rickey Henderson (or Johnny Damon or Juan Pierre if you want to compare to CF) could never really play in RF because they can't make the throw to 3B from the OF.
August 21, 2010 at 09:35PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Speed is the most important aspect in CF and you have to have someone in center who can cover a lot of ground. And yes, CF for this reason tend to be FASTER than RF but RF requires more skills.
You've got to get out of the little league mindset where the worst player goes to RF because none of the hitters hit it there, in MLB RF has to have a good arm at a mimimum. Someone like Barry Bonds or Rickey Henderson (or Johnny Damon or Juan Pierre if you want to compare to CF) could never really play in RF because they can't make the throw to 3B from the OF.
WillyD
August 21, 2010 at 10:42PM View BBCode
So Ken Griffey should have played RF all along? IS that what you're saying. It's not a little league mind-set to say CF is the more important position. ML mangers would prefer their CF's to have a solid arm as well, considering some center field distances make throws to 3B more common. But if you have to choose between an average or even above average guy with speed and a great arm, and a guy with great speed and an average or below average arm, the choice is easy. RF is a half step above left in defensive importance if you are playing on a balanced field, only because of the need for a better arm. That's about it really. You can play Willie Mays in RF if you want but I'll take my chance with him in CF. I would look up the guys you mentioned earlier and see who played center while they partolled right. If any of the guys you mentioned had been better fielders and faster runners they most likely would have played in CF. Please don't make RF out to be the OF's shortstop because that is laughable.
vurbil
The mistake is that he changed a correlation in MLB to a causation in SimD. There were a lot of RF MVPs because there were a lot of good hitters there, not because the writers see RF and vote for it, but the latter is what is built into the code. RF = points, instead of the hitting that happened to come from RF = points.
It's akin to surveying all past MVP winners and determining that players with names starting with the letter "B" won the most MVPs, and therefore giving such players a bonus in the MVP formula.
[Edited on 8-22-2010 by vurbil]
August 22, 2010 at 12:02PM View BBCode
Willy is right. Barterer will defend the formula to the death because he wrote it. He is not ready to admit his mistake when it comes to the RF bonus.The mistake is that he changed a correlation in MLB to a causation in SimD. There were a lot of RF MVPs because there were a lot of good hitters there, not because the writers see RF and vote for it, but the latter is what is built into the code. RF = points, instead of the hitting that happened to come from RF = points.
It's akin to surveying all past MVP winners and determining that players with names starting with the letter "B" won the most MVPs, and therefore giving such players a bonus in the MVP formula.
[Edited on 8-22-2010 by vurbil]
vurbil
But humans make mistakes. We all make mistakes. Hell, sometimes I zone out and get lost in my own town. Just own up to it and remove the position bonuses and we can all move on with life.
August 22, 2010 at 12:07PM View BBCode
By the way, lest this become some kind of childish flame war, I love Barterer. I think it's great that he took the time and offered his expertise to make this formula. I wouldn't even have the foggiest idea how to create it, nor would I have the discipline to research and refine it.But humans make mistakes. We all make mistakes. Hell, sometimes I zone out and get lost in my own town. Just own up to it and remove the position bonuses and we can all move on with life.
barterer2002
The issue is that there are many who think that the MVP is the same as the best hitter. Those people will always be upset when Terry Pendleton, Willie Stargell, Barry Larkin, or Kirk Gibson wins the award. Those that think that the best hitter should win don't want to use any other factors. That isn't the way MLB voting works and since the mission here was to emulate MLB voting that's what's been done.
And to be clear, the statement that I'm taking exception to is when Willy stated that the MVP above won because he played RF. The implication is that the MVP should usually be won by RFs however nobody who claims this has ever put forth one shred of evidence that RFs are winning more than their share of MVP awards. I've freely posted the MVPs from 2 of my leagues above for comparison sake.
In short, if the data is coming out wrong then lets look at it but instead of just saying "I don't like your formula" show the data to support your argument.
August 22, 2010 at 12:45PM View BBCode
Show me that its causing a problem. You keep saying that it is without ever putting out any data to show that it is. And Tyson has always said that if you can write a better formula. One that predicts the MLB MVP better than the one currently in place he'll use that one. The current one has about an 80% success rate.The issue is that there are many who think that the MVP is the same as the best hitter. Those people will always be upset when Terry Pendleton, Willie Stargell, Barry Larkin, or Kirk Gibson wins the award. Those that think that the best hitter should win don't want to use any other factors. That isn't the way MLB voting works and since the mission here was to emulate MLB voting that's what's been done.
And to be clear, the statement that I'm taking exception to is when Willy stated that the MVP above won because he played RF. The implication is that the MVP should usually be won by RFs however nobody who claims this has ever put forth one shred of evidence that RFs are winning more than their share of MVP awards. I've freely posted the MVPs from 2 of my leagues above for comparison sake.
In short, if the data is coming out wrong then lets look at it but instead of just saying "I don't like your formula" show the data to support your argument.
WillyD
2B - 9
RF - 7
3B - 6
SS - 5
CF - 1
LF - 1
1B - 1
C - 0
Obviously a small sample size, but I see 7 MVPs in RF and only 1 each for CF, LF and 1B.
August 22, 2010 at 01:23PM View BBCode
OK, in the FRL here is the breakdown for MVP per position for the last 15 seasons, which is about the time the new formula took effect:2B - 9
RF - 7
3B - 6
SS - 5
CF - 1
LF - 1
1B - 1
C - 0
Obviously a small sample size, but I see 7 MVPs in RF and only 1 each for CF, LF and 1B.