AL MVP: Ortiz or A-Rod

[Subby]

The best part about OOTP is the clutch rating. If you get a team with all CLUTCH players, you are guaranteed to win 135 games per year.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm assuming this is tongue-in-cheek?

I don't know, it is?...

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

let me guess, you're one of those statheads who say "Clutch ability" is a misnomer, that there's no such thing as a clutch player?

The argument is that clutch performance in one season does not predict clutch performance in a following season.

Edit: And it's one of the statheads who has noted that it looks like Ortiz has a really outrageous "clutch" distribution of his production.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

A-Rod without question.

Ortiz's "clutch" hitting? Newsflash: runs scored in the first 6 innings count the same as runs scored in the ninth.

Yeah, but runs scored when your team is already winning by three runs don't count nearly as much towards the team W/L as runs scored when the game is tied or within a run either way.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Yeah, but runs scored when your team is already winning by three runs don't count nearly as much towards the team W/L as runs scored when the game is tied or within a run either way.

While correct, it is not applicable to this particular discussion because ARod has 17 game-winning RBI's compared to Ortiz's 16. So clearly, they are both about equal in hitting when the game is close.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

A-Rod has a slightly higher SLG than Ortiz, and his OBP is 20 points higher.

Which is where the argument about the contextual value of the production comes in... in a vacuum, assuming a typical distribution of production, then those numbers are pretty conclusively in favor of A-rod. However, Ortiz's production has been remarkably atypical.

[oykib]

But can you conclusively prove that it's more valuable than playing the field.

To put it in simple terms- Jason Giambi couldn't be in the Sox lineup regularly. If Ortiz played on the Yanks, you'd get the same production that you'd lose if A-Rod weren't there. But you'd also lose trhe third best hitter in the lineup. What would A-rod cost the Sox if he played in Boston?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by oykib

But can you conclusively prove that it's more valuable than playing the field.

To put it in simple terms- Jason Giambi couldn't be in the Sox lineup regularly. If Ortiz played on the Yanks, you'd get the same production that you'd lose if A-Rod weren't there. But you'd also lose trhe third best hitter in the lineup. What would A-rod cost the Sox if he played in Boston?

What?

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What?

I think he meant that if Ortiz was a Yankee, he would take the DH spot away from Giambi.

Giambi has played more games at first than DH this season, so the original point is not quite right.

[oykib]

Basically, Ryan's got my point.

If A-Rod and Ortiz were to switch teams, it would take Giambi out of the lineup half the time. So, the Yanks overall run production would decrease. However the Red Sox overall run production would increase with the same switch because you'd be getting an upgrade at third and you could get some quality bat at DH that'd produce more than your previous third baseman.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by oykib

Basically, Ryan's got my point.

If A-Rod and Ortiz were to switch teams, it would take Giambi out of the lineup half the time. So, the Yanks overall run production would decrease. However the Red Sox overall run production would increase with the same switch because you'd be getting an upgrade at third and you could get some quality bat at DH that'd produce more than your previous third baseman.

Or you could play him at SS, since he is only playing 3B to keep Jeter happy. If the Yankees set their defense based on defensive talent, A-Rod wouldn't be playing 3B.

[Blackadar]

I wonder if there's any question now.

Without Ortiz, there's no way the Red Sox sniff the playoffs. Ortiz is clearly the Red Sox MVP. Without Mariano Rivera, there's no way the Yankees make the playoffs. Rivera is clearly the Yankees' MVP.

Ortiz: .300 BA, 47 HRs, 148 RBIs, .397 OBA, .604 Slugging
A-Rod: .321, 48 HRs, 130 RBIs, .421 OBA, .610 Slugging

I'd vote for Rivera over A-Rod and since A-Rod's not the MVP of his team, I don't see how he could be the MVP of the league. In the final 6 games of the season, Big Papi got RBIs in 5 of them and hit safely in all 6.

EDIT: Cleveland's Haffner posted great numbers as well, but I think he doesn't make it because Cleveland didn't make the playoffs. It's hard to vote for a guy who, when the playoffs were on the line, got only 2 RBIs in the final week (7 games) of the season.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I wonder if there's any question now.

Without Ortiz, there's no way the Red Sox sniff the playoffs. Ortiz is clearly the Red Sox MVP. Without Mariano Rivera, there's no way the Yankees make the playoffs. Rivera is clearly the Yankees' MVP.

Ortiz: .300 BA, 47 HRs, 148 RBIs, .397 OBA, .604 Slugging
A-Rod: .321, 48 HRs, 130 RBIs, .421 OBA, .610 Slugging

I'd vote for Rivera over A-Rod and since A-Rod's not the MVP of his team, I don't see how he could be the MVP of the league.

I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion you did. A-Rod had better offensive numbers playing in a less hitter-friendly park, played Gold Glove caliber defense, and the Yankees finished with the exact same record as the Red Sox. So how could Ortiz be worth more wins than A-Rod?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion you did. A-Rod had better offensive numbers playing in a less hitter-friendly park, played Gold Glove caliber defense, and the Yankees finished with the exact same record as the Red Sox. So how could Ortiz be worth more wins than A-Rod?

Blackie totally lost me too. The stats only seem to hurt his argument. I don't know why anyone would conclude Rivera is the Yankee's MVP. Replace him with a league average closer and the Yankees may lose an extra couple games because he only pitches a limited number of innings a year (even though they are high leverage innings). Remove A-Rod, and the Yankees lose many more games. I'm just confused.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion you did. A-Rod had better offensive numbers playing in a less hitter-friendly park, played Gold Glove caliber defense, and the Yankees finished with the exact same record as the Red Sox. So how could Ortiz be worth more wins than A-Rod?

Because the impact of subtracting Ortiz from the Red Sox would have been greater than subtracting A-Rod from the Yankees.

And before you go and ask me to prove it, it is this way because I said so.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion you did. A-Rod had better offensive numbers playing in a less hitter-friendly park, played Gold Glove caliber defense, and the Yankees finished with the exact same record as the Red Sox. So how could Ortiz be worth more wins than A-Rod?

MVP = Most Valuable Player

As I said, I don't even think that A-Rod is the most valuable player on his team - Rivera is. If he's not, then he can't be the MVP of the league.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I wonder if there's any question now.

Without Ortiz, there's no way the Red Sox sniff the playoffs. Ortiz is clearly the Red Sox MVP. Without Mariano Rivera, there's no way the Yankees make the playoffs. Rivera is clearly the Yankees' MVP.

Ortiz: .300 BA, 47 HRs, 148 RBIs, .397 OBA, .604 Slugging
A-Rod: .321, 48 HRs, 130 RBIs, .421 OBA, .610 Slugging

I'd vote for Rivera over A-Rod and since A-Rod's not the MVP of his team, I don't see how he could be the MVP of the league. In the final 6 games of the season, Big Papi got RBIs in 5 of them and hit safely in all 6.

EDIT: Cleveland's Haffner posted great numbers as well, but I think he doesn't make it because Cleveland didn't make the playoffs. It's hard to vote for a guy who, when the playoffs were on the line, got only 2 RBIs in the final week (7 games) of the season.

That is ridiculous. You making a mistake on Riviera being more valuable than A-rod doesnt make A-Rod not the MVP. The "take em " away arguement is absurd - hell, take Aaron Small away, and the Yanks dont win the pennant- should we give him the Cy Young ? A-rod matched (if not exceed) Ortiz while playing solid defense at a position where that is a premium - the replacement value at DH is a lot higher than at 3b.

[rkmsuf]

I also believe Rivera is way more important to the Yankers than A-Rod.

So let it be written.

[Blackadar]

Again, this is just my opinion.

But also, one way to look at how important a player is to look at clutch situations.

Late and Close:
Ortiz: 78 ABs, .346, 33 RBIs, 11 HRs
A-Rod: 75 ABs, .293, 12 RBIs, 4 HRs

[jeff061]

Cue Yankees fans saying there's no difference between a 4th inning game winning RBI and a 9th inning one.

[Crapshoot]

Uh, that RBI in the 4th inning actually counts the same, unless they changed the scoring system. Clutch devotees would have you believe scoring the first 6 runs in a 8-7 victory means less than scoring those last 2. And I live in Boston.. so not really a Yankee fan.

[MizzouRah]

Ortiz? The guy who sits his azz on the bench until his AB comes up?

A-Rod, quite easily. Me no like the DH.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Again, this is just my opinion.

But also, one way to look at how important a player is to look at clutch situations.

Late and Close:
Ortiz: 78 ABs, .346, 33 RBIs, 11 HRs
A-Rod: 75 ABs, .293, 12 RBIs, 4 HRs

Ortiz has obviously been great late in the game, but since when does Most Valuable Player equate to Most Clutch Player? Why does an A-Rod HR that puts the Yankees up 3-0 in the 1st inning of a game that ends 3-2 count less than an Ortiz HR that puts the Sox up 3-2 in the 9th? Value is accumulated through 9 innings, not just the final 3.

And I am far from an A-Rod or Yankee fan, so it really pains me to have to plead his case.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Because the impact of subtracting Ortiz from the Red Sox would have been greater than subtracting A-Rod from the Yankees.

And before you go and ask me to prove it, it is this way because I said so.

So...you take two players with (for argument's sake) identical batting stats from two teams with identical records. One plays gold glove caliber defense while the other never goes out into the field. And the player that doesn't play defense would have a greater impact if he were subtracted? I don't understand that logic.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So...you take two players with (for argument's sake) identical batting stats from two teams with identical records. One plays gold glove caliber defense while the other never goes out into the field. And the player that doesn't play defense would have a greater impact if he were subtracted? I don't understand that logic.

Defense, schmefence.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So...you take two players with (for argument's sake) identical batting stats from two teams with identical records. One plays gold glove caliber defense while the other never goes out into the field. And the player that doesn't play defense would have a greater impact if he were subtracted? I don't understand that logic.

It's trivial to understand. If the player who plays defense has a pretty good backup, or is surrounded by all-star caliber players, then subtracting him might not have that great an impact on his team.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's trivial to understand. If the player who plays defense has a pretty good backup, or is surrounded by all-star caliber players, then subtracting him might not have that great an impact on his team.

Before A-Rod got there the Yankers used to win World Series.


HAR!

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's trivial to understand. If the player who plays defense has a pretty good backup, or is surrounded by all-star caliber players, then subtracting him might not have that great an impact on his team.

Not a bad point.

I just think a guy who does not play the field on a regular basis, may have more time for batting practice, pitcher study, and more rest.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Not a bad point.

I just think a guy who does not play the field on a regular basis, may have more time for batting practice, pitcher study, and more rest.

Oh, I agree. I actually take Bill Simmons' side on this one: in 5 years, who is going to remember who won the MVP this season? I'm far more concerned with who wins the World Series, and think both of them still have some time to make their cases.

I was just trying to help MrBigglesworth understand the logic that he was having trouble grasping.

[oykib]

I love these "well-reasoned" arguments for why Ortiz should be MVP over A-Rod.

For the clutch guys:

How much is that 'clutch' ability worth. 'Cause, you know, Ortiz doesn't play defense. His overall offensive numbers aren't as good as A-Rod's either.

To make the Ortiz-was-so-clutch argument you have to say that his amount of 'clutchness' over A-Rod makes up for 150 extra games of excellent defense at third base as well as the 3-7% (or whatevr) better A-Rod's overall offensive numbers were.

I'm talking all-around game here. A-Rod ground into fivel less DPs. He stole twenty more bases-- with a good (21/6) percentage. And those twenty-four pointa of OBA are a pretty big deal. As has been mentioned, he also did it in a less-friendly environment for hitters.

To come to the conclusion that this clutch ability makes up for all that is asinine.

To the replacement/context guys:

You can't just use Mariano vs. A-Rod. Use the overall context:

Let's swap players.

A-Rod goes to the Red Sox and puts Mueller on the bench.

Ortiz goes to the Yanks and puts Giambi on the bench.

Ortiz's .299/.395/.604 is an improvement over
Giambi's .271/.440/.535

at least it is when you account for his clutch performances and:
+15 HR
+61 RBI
+45 runs
+1 SB
+ 26 2B

But let's look at A-Rod vs. Mueller:

A-Rod's .321/.421/.610 greatly outshines
Mueller's .295/.369/.430

especially when you consider that he:
is generally regarded as the better fielder
+37 HR
+68 RBI
+55 runs
+21 SB

This is just to illustrate how much more a team easily replace the production at DH. Mueller is considered a good 3B. But his numbers aren't even worth half a season worth of A-Rod.

If the argument above with it's raw numbers doesn't sway you...

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Not a bad point.

I just think a guy who does not play the field on a regular basis, may have more time for batting practice, pitcher study, and more rest.

Actually, that point is wrong - because comparing him to the team at large should not be the measure of value - comparing him to players at large should. Most people who play DH hit better than those who play 3b, who tend to hit better than MI - this is the defensive spectrum that common sense (and James) tells us about. It is easier to replace a DH who hits like Ortiz than a 3b who hits like A-Rod.

[rkmsuf]

yeah but A-Rod is a dick. Everybody loves Papi.

[Blackadar]

Just batting doesn't make up the MVP. I'll be the first to say that fielding, clutch hitting, leadership, etc. all make up the MVP. Obviously, their hitting stats are very close. A-Rod won by .021 in BA, Papi had 18 more RBIs.

Obviously, A-Rod has a huge advantage in fielding. I think he was pretty good in the field this year. But how good was he? He has the 3rd best FPCT in the AL. But his ZR is average and his RF stinks. Huge advantage: A-Rod.

Can anyone honestly tell me that A-Rod is the leader of the Yankees over Sheffy, Jeter or Rivera? Can anyone honestly tell me that Papi isn't the leader of the Red Sox and helped hold them together through a number of issues (Schilling, Damon and most of all, Manny) that could have made the team fall apart? Huge advantage: Ortiz.

Some may count these factors more than others, but these are facts. More of Ortiz' RBIs won games than A-Rods, regardless of whether they took place in the 4th inning or 9th. Don't believe me? Go look up when their RBIs made the difference in the final score of the game. Ortiz is unquestionably more of a clutch hitter than A-Rod. Advantage: Ortiz.

For me, clutch hitting+winning more games+leadership > decent fielding.

[GreenMonster]

Playoff game bottom of the 8th.. Your team trails 4-3.. Your superstar comes up with 2 outs in the 8th man on 2nd.. To me this is the spot the defines the MVP for that year. I would want Ortiz up and right now I can't think of a close 2nd. If you want A-ROD to play great Defense and keep the game close in the 9th that's fine, I want the guy that will tie or win the game for me.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's trivial to understand. If the player who plays defense has a pretty good backup, or is surrounded by all-star caliber players, then subtracting him might not have that great an impact on his team.

Ortiz has Manny Ramirez hitting behind him and Damon getting on base in front of him. It's not like he is on a small market team here. It's easier to get a backup DH than a backup 3B, so that point is in A-Rod's favor as well.

That still doesn't answer my question.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Actually, that point is wrong - because comparing him to the team at large should not be the measure of value - comparing him to players at large should. Most people who play DH hit better than those who play 3b, who tend to hit better than MI - this is the defensive spectrum that common sense (and James) tells us about. It is easier to replace a DH who hits like Ortiz than a 3b who hits like A-Rod.

There are a lot of angles to consider, that's for sure. Heck, Nunez hit very well at 3B for Rolen this year, but there were some miscues that Rolen would have made on defense that might have given us a few more wins.

It is much easier to replace a DH that hits well, than it is a position player who hits well AND plays the field very well.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So...you take two players with (for argument's sake) identical batting stats from two teams with identical records. One plays gold glove caliber defense while the other never goes out into the field. And the player that doesn't play defense would have a greater impact if he were subtracted? I don't understand that logic.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's trivial to understand. If the player who plays defense has a pretty good backup, or is surrounded by all-star caliber players, then subtracting him might not have that great an impact on his team.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Ortiz has Manny Ramirez hitting behind him and Damon getting on base in front of him. It's not like he is on a small market team here. It's easier to get a backup DH than a backup 3B, so that point is in A-Rod's favor as well.

That still doesn't answer my question.

Do you really have this much trouble with logic? You asked a hypothetical, and I responded to the hypothetical, and then you say it doesn't apply to the situation at hand? Note I said nothing about Ortiz, A-Rod, or Manny. Read again:

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So...you take two players with (for argument's sake) identical batting stats from two teams with identical records. One plays gold glove caliber defense while the other never goes out into the field. And the player that doesn't play defense would have a greater impact if he were subtracted? I don't understand that logic.

I answered that pretty clearly, I thought. A superstar player's removal CAN have minimal impact if there are enough other superstars starting or a superstar-in-waiting ready to back him up. Removing a DH CAN have a huge impact, if no one else on the bench can hit anywhere near as well as him. The logic is pretty straightforward here. It all depends on who else is around them, which is where the argument comes in to play in this case.

Feel free to argue about whether or not that situation applies here, or if removing A-Rod really has less of an impact than removing Ortiz, but don't try to say the logic makes no sense. The logic makes perfect sense, so keep the debate as to whether or not A-Rod vs. Ortiz really fits the bill.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by GreenMonster

Playoff game bottom of the 8th.. Your team trails 4-3.. Your superstar comes up with 2 outs in the 8th man on 2nd.. To me this is the spot the defines the MVP for that year. I would want Ortiz up and right now I can't think of a close 2nd. If you want A-ROD to play great Defense and keep the game close in the 9th that's fine, I want the guy that will tie or win the game for me.

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Uh, that RBI in the 4th inning actually counts the same, unless they changed the scoring system. Clutch devotees would have you believe scoring the first 6 runs in a 8-7 victory means less than scoring those last 2.

Like clockwork.

[rkmsuf]

Clutch definately makes a difference. In the 4th inning you don't know it's a "clutch" situation where as in the 9th you are well aware of the implications of not coming through. Big mental difference.

The runs count the same but the situations are worlds apart.

[jeff061]

It's the difference between hitting a buzzer beater to win, or nailing the go ahead points with over a minute left to play. There is a difference between the 4th inning and 9th inning.

Or kicking a go ahead field goal in the 3rd quarter vrs kicking it as time runs out.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Do you really have this much trouble with logic? You asked a hypothetical, and I responded to the hypothetical, and then you say it doesn't apply to the situation at hand? Note I said nothing about Ortiz, A-Rod, or Manny. Read again:

I think I see where you are confused, I didn't ask a hypothetical, I was explaining the actual situation. There was nothing hypothetical about my description of it.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by jeff061

It's the difference between hitting a buzzer beater to win, or nailing the go ahead points with over a minute left to play. There is a difference between the 4th inning and 9th inning.

Or kicking a go ahead field goal in the 3rd quarter vrs kicking it as time runs out.

Agreed. Tell that to Adam Vinetari.

As I mentioned before, even if you want to discount "clutch", more of Ortiz' RBIs actually were the difference in a W or L by his team than A-Rods.

It seems that the whole discussion comes down to this since their batting stats are remarkably similar.

A-Rod supporters: Fielding > DH
Ortiz supporters: Clutch hitting + leadership+more important to team > Fielding

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

A-Rod supporters: Fielding > DH
Ortiz supporters: Clutch hitting + leadership+more important to team > Fielding

I think some people are also giving Papi extra credit for his work in the role of Florida on Good Times.

[jeff061]

ohhhh, that was below the belt.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

A-Rod supporters: Fielding > DH
Ortiz supporters: Clutch hitting + leadership+more important to team > Fielding

I like how "more important to team" got added to Ortiz supporters. Where is that from? Wouldn't A-Rod supporters say the exact same thing?

If clutch hitting were a repeatable skill (carrying over a career), I would be inclined to give it more support. Instead, it is based on small sample sizes and good timing. With that being said, I'll give a little credit for that "luck" in a given year. Still, I like players who put a team way ahead too.

Leadership is also an area where I tread lightly. It is based on media coverage and none of us really know what is going on. Why doesn't A-Rod get credit for throwing a stink about not being SS? He was a Gold Glove SS and went gracefully to 3B. I'm not sure that counts for much, but I don't think the media story of Papi counts for much either.

So, for me, I see:

A-Rod - edge in batting (RBI's are overvalued, IMO), but only a slight one
edge in fielding that is enormous (even if he were a LF, it would be enormous - being a 3B is even more of a bonus)

Ortiz - slight '+' for being lucky/clutch
slight bonus for getting credited by media with leadership

So, for me, it is pretty clearly A-Rod, but Ortiz gets credit for a great season.

[oykib]

I wouldn't argue that hitting in clutch situations is more valuable. The question is how much more valuable is it?

That ninth inning HR is not infinitely more valuable than the sixth inning one. It's marginally more valuable.

But what is that margin? A-Rod's defense has a great marginal benefit. We're talking at least 10-15% at the very least-- assuming you really don't believe that defense has much impact at all.

Looking at A-Rod's numbers in the clutch, which are good, and comparing them Ortiz's, which are excellent, I don't see where you get that the margin is equal to the benefit A-Rod gives you on defense and with his overall better offensive numbers.

[rkmsuf]

Where would you find the number of game winning or lead producing rbi's?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Where would you find the number of game winning or lead producing rbi's?

As of the last week of the regular season, A-Rod had 20 GWRBI's and Ortiz had 19.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

As of the last week of the regular season, A-Rod had 20 GWRBI's and Ortiz had 19.

Thanks, is there a link or something. I can't find these stats anywhere.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

As of the last week of the regular season, A-Rod had 20 GWRBI's and Ortiz had 19.

Go back and look at the number of RBIs that made the difference in the score of the game. I.E., if those RBIs don't happen, the team loses the game rather than wins it.

Ortiz leads A-Rod by 20%.