"Illogic" - A Race for MVP

I will touch on this more in the coming days, but I simply could not pass up on the opportunity to call out one of the most stupid comments I have ever read. And let me tell you, that bar is quite low!

Cliff Corcoran of SI.com writes,

[Joe] Mauer might be the first player you'd eliminate from that list, if only because his performance this season (.331/.407/.473, 9 HR, 74 RBIs) falls so far short of his otherworldly MVP campaign of a year ago.

You can check out the list of obvious candidates for yourself. You can also ignore the fact that for some reason I keep going back to SI.com despite the continual abomination that is their baseball writing (although there is more to come).

Despite all of that I have to wonder where Corcoran gets off eliminating Mauer based on the fact that Mauer is failing to be Mauer. That is, Corcoran feels as though simply because Mauer's MVP season in 2009 was greater than his season in 2010 that he is undeserving of it this year. What he fails to mention is that there is a hippo standing on a banana in odd numbered months that make it impossible to vote for the Twins backstop.

What a joke!

Well thanks for eliminating Mauer out of the MVP race based on that logic, I was really scratching my head there!

But Corcoran goes on to oust his own logic time and time again.

First, he suggests that Troy Tulowitzki is undeserving of the NL MVP simply because he missed a month of the season (okay) and consequently his counting stats are down (okay, fault MVP voters). However, this "logic" only applies to Tulowitzki because...Well, because.

That is, Corcoran believes that despite not leading the league in any counting categories and missing a significant amount of time, Josh Hamilton is the favorite to win AL MVP. Sadly, Corcoran leaves out his rationale behind the pineapple taking home the Cy Young, but I can't imagine the logic would be much different then removing Tulo from the NL ballot for injuries and a lack of counting stats and adding Hamilton to the top of his despite the same inefficiencies.

Second, Corcoran uses his "Mauer defense" MINUS the counting stats argument to write why Albert Pujols deserves third instead of first in writing,

"The counting stats are there, but relative to his own absurd standard, Pujols' rate stats are down this season. In the course of winning the last two NL MVPs, he averaged 42 home runs and 125 RBIs, totals within his reach this year, but also hit .342/.452/.656, which is yet another level of awesomeness above what he has accomplished in 2010. Expect Pujols to be penalized a bit for failing to live up to his own past performance..."

Corcoran does mention that this may be "unfair" however is not willing to fully commit to the level of fairness in this discussion nor state if Pujols should be the winner.

Going against his own logic, Corcoran writes about the counting stats being there, but the failure of Pujols to be Pujols as his fault. There is an interesting comment about Coco the talking monkey and Afghanistan though, which certainly leads to a further understanding of who will win the NL MVP.


If I were a less serious baseball fan, or simply a casual observer of the sport. Maybe I'm from Minnesota and I'm bummed that the Vikings started off 0 and 2 and I'm looking for something to heal those wounds ending up at Corcoran's article. However, upon completion I'm not certain this person would have a better understanding of who the deserving MVP is in either league. Where an argument goes against one player, it supports another; where it disqualifies one, it inflates another. Simply put, the logic makes teaching flip cup to a class of 5 year olds seem like a great decision.

By the way, that's a decision I made while teaching in Korea, so thank you Mr. Corcoran.

(Take note that 3 of the students were one'n'done - I'm a great teacher!)

Thinking it Over - End of Year Awards

The Cy Young Award, and many other in baseball are typically given to a pitcher which it is often times difficult to agree with. I think back to when Bartolo Colon won the award in 2005, a year when he led the league in essentially one statistical category, yet walked away with the award.

This insight (read - tangent) came from my perusing of Baseball Prospectus' On the Beat series, where author John Perrotto provides us with a handful of scout reactions to some Major League players. On August 9th, Perrotto had this tidbit about sure-thing non-Cy Young contender Felix Hernandez,

"The fact that this guy is 7-9 is just further proof that you can't judge a pitcher solely on his win-loss record. He was 19-5 last season and his stuff is basically the same and he's pitching almost as well. Believe me, there's nothing wrong with him that some run support wouldn't help. He's still as nasty as ever."

And really, once you look deeper, Felix truly is having the same season as last year, with an argument that he's performing better. That is, his strikeouts are up (career high), his walks are down (career low). In fact, Felix is performing at the best level of his career across the board.

Felix is currently tied with CC Sabathia for the highest WPA in the American League. His 3.27 mark is higher then the total he put up in 2009 and the highest mark of his career.


I suppose what this post boils down to is A Case for Felix, as there is a legitimate chance that despite his mound heroics, Felix won't come home with the Cy Young this year. It wouldn't surprise me, that his potentially sub .500 record would leave him off the ballot of most BBWA despite being among the most valuable and dominant in the American League.

The Problem With Lazy Analysis

Over at the Bleacher Report there is a debate regarding the merits of the MVP award and who it rightfully deserves to be awarded to. One author believes it must go to a player on a winning team, as a player on a losing team could be replaced with any player and that team would still lose. The author asserts that a loss is a loss; although he claims 'confidence' and intangibles are important factors.

Admittedly the author believes that the BBWAA got the 2008 American League Most Valuable Player wrong, but isn't too alarmed at the selection feeling it was an unqualified group to begin with. Thus, he continues discussing meaningless merits such as defensive value-although incorrectly tabbing second base as the 'easiest infield position to field'. His source, Little League Baseball. The logic is utterly horrifying, but is a great place to start at pointing out the lazy analytical skills of this writer.

With the internet such an easy tool to make quick searches, would it have been so difficult for the author to discover that second base is rated as the third most difficult position to play? Behind short but ahead of center field? Possibly the author was stuck in a 1920's, when the double play wasn't as prominent.

Whatever the reason, we can see the beginning of a rather lazy analysis. This only furthers the misinformation provided earlier where the author asserts that only those on playoff caliber teams are worthy of the Most Valuable Player Award. This is noted due to the fact that the author lists players only on playoff caliber teams.

The statistical analysis is equally as weak as the author ignores park factors. This is a fairly simple task nowadays, Baseball Prospectus offers a straight forward and easily accessed stat called Equivalent Average. Dustin Pedroia had a fine season, but offensively he wasn't even on the map of Milton Bradley, Alex Rodriguez, among others.


What is worse about this authors analysis is the next step he takes towards justifying his justification regarding Pedroia. The author states that the award must go to a player on a winning team, simply because that is how the voters have done things historically.

Before diving too deep into this, has the author already forgotten the Edinson Volquez debacle of two weeks ago? Remember, when three voters were so confused with the rules of rookie eligibility that they named Volquez on their ballots. Worse yet, these voters are so ignorant that they managed to convince themselves that Geovanny Soto's impressive rookie campaign was somehow superior to Volquez's excellent non-rookie season.

The next obvious error the author makes is in assuming that the voting criteria has not changed. That is, we now know that batting average is only an important fact in context. On base percentage, has taken over as a significantly more vital statistic. Thus, where players would previously win award based on high batting averages, those figures have now become secondary to on base and slugging averages.

As the voters understanding of value evolves, the winners will become more accurately understood.

According to our author, playing on a winning team is much more valuable, according tot he voters, then playing on a losing team. The argument, not as bad as his Little League justification, but a joke nonetheless, "History and Major League Baseball are screaming it right in your face."

Before I go too far into this, can anyone remember when history and Major League Baseball made errors? Hmm, how about when there was racial segregation in the sport? Prior to Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby, was it accurate to suggest that black players were inferior? Or is it more accurate to figure out why those players were left from the ranks of Major League Baseball?

Similarly, the author's this is the way it's done philosophy is in shambles. First, simply because that is the way it has been done, does not legitimize the process.

Second, claiming that a direct correlation exists between MVP's and being on a winning team is a lazy conclusion to draw. Especially when the author admits that the two players that won MVP awards from non-winning teams were obvious choices. The obvious question then, were the players selected because they were on winning teams, or because they were obvious choices?

I decided to properly analyze this trend to find out if it was a coincidence that the last fourteen respective MVP's came from winning teams. The following chart represents my findings:

I will begin by stating that this analysis is far from iron-clad. One thing I would alter about this analysis would be to utilize more value based statistics. Since not every one of these stats agree with one another on the basis of what is valuable and what characteristics make a player valuable, it would be superior to use a couple more. However, utilizing Baseball Prospectus' VORP (Value Over Replacement Player) is a nice place to start, and one that statistically ranks players.

I then researched the recent MVP winners. A more in depth study would look at the second and third place finishers, but for now, this will suffice.

My next step was to find the top three finishes according to VORP as well as the position the eventual MVP finished in. As you can see, Baseball Prospectus picked the accurate MVP winning (within 2 places) in 16 of 28 years. In other words, the best or close to the best player (according to Baseball Prospectus) was the eventual best player as per the BBWAA. This has nothing to do with winning. I repeat, NOTHING!

However, I wanted to find out what winning had to do with eventual winners. I wanted to find out if there was in fact a correlation between being in the top three in VORP and being on a winning team.

The conclusion, of the top three players in terms of VORP over the last 14 seasons (84 in total), 64 came from teams with a recordof .500 or better. In other words, the best players play for the best teams-logical, right?


What does this brief study show? That the BBWAA are not picking the players based on whether or not they play for a winning clubs, rather, the BBWAA are picking the best players-albeit in a relatively flawed system.

2008 BBWAA American League Most Valuable Player

Dustin Pedroia?!? Oh, COME ON!

Now Pedroia had a fine season. The Red Sox would have been a worse team without him, but can't the same be said for almost any of the top 5 or 6 MVP candidates? In fact, with a cast of Mike Lowell, Kevin Youkilis, David Ortiz, and JD Drew, it could be argued that Pedroia had it easier then the rest of the field.

According to Baseball Prospectus' "Baseball Between the Numbers", the authors founds that despite batting orders not mattering, the type of hitter following the next did have an influence on production. The following is a chart from the book:

As you can see, the better the hitter behind results in superior production. It also results in a drop in intentional base on balls. This is especially noteworthy as the players walk rate improves despite a drop in IBB.

In any event, we can see that a player like Pedroia, whom the Sox would miss, is less valuable then a player like Joe Mauer.

There is an argument for Pedroia due to the amount of games the Red Sox hitters missed, namely Drew, Lowell, and Ortiz, in addition to the eventual trade of Manny Ramirez. While Pedroia's improvement this season may have motivated the Red Sox to move Manny, I'm certain receiving Jason Bay, and knowing that Drew, Lowell, Ortiz, and Youkilis would be around didn't hurt.


All that being said, let's look at the win and value stats and see where Pedroia matches up among hitters in the American League:

• WPA - 6th (behind Mauer, Carlos Pena, Justin Morneau, Carlos Quentin, and Grady Sizemore);
• VORP - 3rd (behind Alex Rodriguez and Grady Sizemore); and
  
• WSAB - Tied for 12th (behind Mauer, Youkilis, Ian Kinsler, Morneau, Rodriguez, Sizemore, Josh Hamilton, Quentin, Johnny Damon, Vladimir Guerrero, and Milton Bradley).

These are three very important win and value statistics, of which there is consistently one player ahead of him (Sizemore) and a handful that show up on at least two lists ahead of Pedroia (Mauer, Rodriguez, Morneau, and Quentin). Does it make sense then, that Pedroia wins this award?

What is additionally shocking, a writer somehow decided to leave Pedroia off his ballot altogether. While I have spent the last while arguing that Pedroia should not have won the award, there is certainly not a lot of ways that I could be convinced to leave him off the ballot entirely.

However, from an assembly of writers which concluded that Josh Hamilton was more valuable then Grady Sizemore (by nearly three times as much), that Milton Bradley was essentially useless (he received 2 votes, a 6th and 7th), and a ballot where Ian Kinsler can only net 1 10th place vote and Mike Mussina can receive an 8th place one is simply a joke.


I truly do not know how to put this into words any longer and I am relieved that the post-season awards are finished.

2008 BBWAA National League Most Valuable Player

Pujols wins!

This afternoon Albert Pujols was named the National League's Most Valuable Player. In what was an extremely close race due to the fact that there was not a clear cut favorite for the award, the BBWAA managed to pick the most deserving player.

In total, 27 players received votes. That seems like a lot of confusion between the writers. I can't understand how, or why, there would be so many players nominated for the award and it will be interesting once what type of home team biases exist. Specifically, the bottom four players all received one vote each.

I'd like to mention one thing that sticks out to me that, well, is pathetic.

Ryan Howard? Really, what did Howard do to encourage the writers to make this such a close race? What did Howard do that made the writers feel as though he was superior to teammate Chase Utley?

Let's compare the value and win stats of these two players:

RC/27 - Utley 7.79, Howard 6.43
WPA - Howard 2.37, Utley 1.47
VORP - Utley 62.2, Howard 35.3
MLV - Utley 42.7, Howard 27.5
WSAB - Utley 16, Howard 12
WARP - Utley 10.4, Howard 5.0

As you can see, Utley is substantial superior to Howard, leading in 5 of 6 value or win statistical categories.

How about EQA?

Utley - .308
Howard - .291

There you have it, Utley was clearly more valuable then Howard.

An argument was made for the play of Howard down the stretch, however can that same argument not be made for Utley's play to start the season? Chase posted an OPS as of June 2nd of 1.083. By comparison, while Howard was hot down the stretch, his play during that time was substantial less then Chase's, posting an OPS of .954 in the second half.

By voting for Ryan Howard over Chase Utley, the writers are invariably saying that production in April and May does not count to the same degree as production July, August, and September. While games appear to be more meaningful towards the end of the season, had Utley not performed at the level he did in April and May, Howard's second half production would have gone largely unnoticed as the Phils would have been playing meaningless games.

2008 BBWAA American and National League Manager of the Year

The BBWAA announced the American and National League Manager of the Year awards. The selections were not overly surprising, nor am I in the position to debate the decisions made.

Joe Maddon took the honors in the American League with 27 of 28 first place votes. I wonder what Maddon did differently in the eyes of the writers to make him jump from not being in the top 4, to being the best manager? That, or the other managers performed at a substantially less rate.

In the National League, Lou Piniella the award in what was a much tighter race. He was not listed on everyone's ballot but did make it on 27 of 32, which is fairly impressive.

The most interesting vote was for the Brewers Dale Sveum, who was listed on one writers ballot as the third best manager. If CC Sabathia and Manny Ramirez do not qualify for award in the National League, I think it is laughable that someone picked Sveum for the managerial award.

The OLIB's 2008 Manager of the Year

The Manager of the Year Awards are ones that I truly do not care about, nor do I have a strong opinion in regards to it. It may be in part to being lazy, or it may be due to the fact that I have little to no experience playing baseball. Whatever the reason, I simply do not feel qualified to judge the performance of a manager.

That is, the easy and popular choice for the American League Award is Joe Maddon. A just argument is that Maddon was responsible for the Rays climb from worst to first. Having catchy slogans and being an interesting character certainly helps Maddon's case.

But what exactly did he do? It isn't as if Maddon 'managed' his team to being better hitters in 2008 compared to 2007, the statistics suggest both seasons were essentially identical. He did have to deal with a fair amount of injuries to deal with, so maybe he can be complimented for getting what he did out of Eric Hinske and Willy Aybar to patch up a wounded lineup.

However, Maddon also had a fair amount of underperformances. Players who simply played below their expected levels, such as Carlos Pena and BJ Upton. If Maddon is not to be punished for that, shouldn't Eric Wedge get a mulligan for Victor Martinez and Travis Hafner?

Some people may point the the improved performances from the Rays pitchers as evidence to the job that Maddon did, but is that a reflection of his management, or simply a matter of the teams defense improving? I do suppose he can be given credit for getting his pitchers to trust the players behind them, but to what degree?

Maddon successfully implemented two platoons and was patient with Jason Bartlett, so that is working in Maddon's favor.

Working against Maddon is the fact that his pinch hitters were among the worst in all of Major League baseball. Managers are often applauded for picking the right guy off the bench at the right time, but the Rays had the second worst OPS by a pinch hitter in the American League.

The question then, how have people come to the conclusion that Maddon was the American Leagues uncontested Manager of the Year? If the Rays have an identical performance in 2009, will he again win the award, or will it go to a manager that takes his team from the scrap heap to a championship?

That is, is this award a reflection of a team 'over-achieving' in the eyes of the public, or is this an award based on actual management? Are experts so certain about the specific game plans, and managerial styles that they can conclude the exact value of a manager?

Take Terry Francona for example. The Sox were expected to win. The Sox have a roster that on paper, looks like one of a winner. The Sox spend like a winner. Lo and behold, the Red Sox are winners. Can we legitimately say that Francona has less to do with the Sox winning then Maddon had with the Rays winning?

The National League holds a similar story. Lou Pinella seems to be the easy choice. But weren't the Cubs expected to win this year? Didn't many experts pick the Cubs to be the best team in the National League?

My formula for picking a Manager of the Year in each division will be to calculate how many wins per dollar spent each manager contributed. This will not be how I draw my conclusion, it will simply provide me with a couple candidates. In addition to wins per dollar, I will also look at how much a team 'overachieved' (explanation to follow) as well as considering hurdles a manager had to over come.

The chart below ranks teams based on the average price of players (courtesy CBS Sportsline). The highlighted teams (Blue = American League, Red = National League) represents the top three. The sixth column, improperly titled 'wins per million' is actually the amount of money each team spent on a win. The final column utilizes Baseball Prospectus' 3rd order standings compared to a teams actual standings.
In the American League, the top three Managers are the Tampa Bay Rays, Minnesota Twins, and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Joe Maddon from the Rays did the most with the least amount of money spent. However, this is a tricky statistic, as the Rays are a product of having a lot of very impressive youngsters. Nevertheless, putting up a victory at less the $500,000 is an impressive feat.

Ron Gardenhire and the Minnesota Twins posted the second highest amount of wins better then their third order standings suggest. The Twins also did such with the 4th lowest payroll in the American League.

While the Angels are one of the highest priced teams in the league, Mike Scocia also got the most value out of each of his teams' wins among franchises in the top 10 in payroll. What sticks out most with the Angels is that Scocia managed to grab an additional 16 wins then his team deserved according to BP's third Order Wins.

While it is impressive what Maddon did with his low payroll, it isn't as if he took a bunch of nobodies and turned them into gold. A player such as Evan Longoria is a star and while he is not being paid as such, the expectations are similarly as high. Maddon then, is my runner-up for AL Manager of the Year with Mike Scocia taking the award due to managing his team to an additional 16 wins better then expected.

The top three in the National League are Charlie Manuel from the Philadelphia Phillies, Cecil Cooper of the Houston Astros, and Fredi Gonzalez of the Florida Marlins.

The other Florida team managed to get the most wins for the least amount of money, absolutely demolishing the impressive figure the Rays posted. Unlike the Rays, the Marlins did so while exceeding their third order wins. Additionally, Gonzalez did not have the benefit of putting out a roster of extraordinarily talented youngsters.

Cecil Cooper and the Houston Astros had one of the most underrated seasons in baseball. A team, that despite being in the top half in team spending proved to be relatively efficient with the money they did spend. The biggest factor working in Cooper's favor is the fact that his team over-achieved by more then 10 wins during the 2008 season. Those 10 wins are substantial, in that they represent the difference between a team that still had a shot up until the trade deadline, and a team without a prayer.

The Phillies Charlie Manuel had similar success to Cecil Cooper. While expectations for the Phillies were higher then they were for the Astros, Manuel provided decent punch compared to the dollars spent. His 5.2 wins above third order standings also help his case.

However, they do not help his case to be the winner, nor the runner up. Those votes will go to Fredi Gonzalez and Cecil Cooper respectively. Gonzalez just did too much with too little to ignore.


While popular opinion has it that Maddon and Pinella are the best managers in their respective leagues, popular opinion does not have a fancy chart.

The OLIB's 2008 AL Cy Young

To this point in the post-season awards, there has been two obvious candidates for each award. The same holds true for the American League Cy Young Award which sees Cliff Lee and his miraculous turn-around of a season, up against Roy Halladay and his underrated 'horse'-like season.

The two pitchers are inseparable, and despite Lee leading Halladay in essentially every category, there is reason to question whether or not Lee is deserving to be rated ahead of Halladay.

Joe Sheehan at Baseball Prospectus first proposed the idea of rating Halladay over Lee. His theory was that Halladay's schedule had been substantially more difficult then Lee's. This is something I had never truly considered prior to reading Sheehan's article, but clearly this is relavent information.

Sheehan writes,

Cliff Lee has made 28 starts this season, Roy Halladay 29. Of those, 13 are in-common starts: the A’s, Rays and Rangers twice, and the Angels, White Sox, Reds, Royals, Twins, Yankees and Mariners once. Those starts cancel out. Of the remaining starts, there seems to be a very wide gap in the calilber of competition, enough to at least mention. Of the 15 starts Cliff Lee does not have in common with Halladay, nine have come against teams in the bottom third in offense, as ranked by team EqA, and none have come against a team ranked in the top six.

Looking at it from the other direction, Halladay does not have a single not-in-common start against a team ranked below 18th in EqA. So of the 15 (in Halladay’s case, 16) not in common starts between the two, 60% of Lee’s have come against offenses worse than any of Halladay’s. Halladay also has four not-in-common starts (one against the Cubs, three against the Red Sox) better than any of Lee’s.

Wouldn't you agree that is substantial? Wouldn't that be like not adjusting a hitter's stats that were inflated by an extremely favorable hitting environment?

Sheehan continues,

Let me run the data this way, because I think it illustrates the point. The following numbers are the team EqA ranks for each not-in-common opponent, highest to lowest.

Halladay: 3, 4, 4, 4, 9, 9, 9, 11, 11, 14, 14, 14, 14, 17, 18, 18

Lee: 7, 7, 7, 12, 13, 13, 21, 22, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28, 28

It helps if you read those numbers right to left. It’s clear from this data that Cliff Lee has seen a significantly inferior set of opponents than Halladay has.

The argument becomes substantial. However, individuals may slightly discredit it, by taking a lazy approach, looking at the 'similar opponents' and grouping them together. One writer, debated me at BDD using this lazy approach.

His theory was, for example, that 6 'common' starts are the same no matter who the common starts are. While anyone with a moderate amount of intelligence can understand that if one pitcher throws 5 games against the Yankees and 1 against the Royals it is vastly more difficult then 5 games against the Royals and 1 against the Yankees. This doesn't even account for the enormous deviations in hitter friendly environments that exists.

What that lazy analyst should have done, is the following:

Halladay faced the following teams in common:

• Boston 5 times
• Kansas City once
• Minnesota once
• New York Yankees 6 times
• Seattle once
• Tampa 5 times
• Texas once
  

Lee faced the same opponents:

• Once
• Five times
• Four times
• Once
• Twice
• Twice
• Twice
  

What he then should have done was calculate each teams runs per game:

• Boston Red Sox - 5.22
• Kansas City Royals - 4.27
• Minnesota Twins - 5.13
• New York Yankees - 4.87
• Seattle Mariners - 4.14
• Tampa Bay Rays - 4.78
• Texas Rangers - 5.56
  

The next step would have been to create a balance going one way or another. That is to say, Halladay faced Boston 5 times and Lee faced them once, thus, Halladay gets credit for 4 starts against a team with 5.22 runs per game. Similarly, Lee faced Minnesota 4 times and Halladay faced them once, thus, Lee gets credit for only 3 starts against a team with a 5.13 run per game.

The next step is to multiply the games played by the amount of runs per game. I separated Halladays starts from Lee's and found:

• Halladay faced 12 'similar' games against teams with a cumulative 4.96 runs per game,

• Lee faced 9 'similar' games against teams with a cumulative 4.69 runs per game.

That deviation is the difference between facing baseball's 7th best offensive team instead of baseball's 15th best offensive team. In other words, Halladay had a substantially more difficult 'similar opponents' schedule.

Thus, despite the writers assertion that Lee fared better then Halladay against similar opponents, the writer failed to discover that Lee had a substantially easier similar opponents schedule.

While Sheehan's analysis is excellent and provides quite the step towards arguing for Roy Halladay, his analysis assumes that Halladay was facing the best Red Sox lineup everytime he went out there. While my procedure takes a similar shortcut, we can utilize Baseball Prospectus' database to tell us who faced more difficult batters.

According to BP's "Opponent's Quality, On Base Plus Slugging Average (OQO) is the aggregate on base plus slugging average of all batters faced by a pitcher..." We can use this tool to figure out who regularly faced tougher opponents.

In the American League, among starters with at least 200 innings pitched during the 2008 season, Roy Halladay had the most difficult OQO of .766. Ranking last out of 15 pitchers was, guess who, Cliff Lee, posting an OQO of .735.

In other words, we're talking the difference in Felipe Lopez and Yunel Escobar. By show of hands, if you were to pick one of those hitters to face for every at bat of a season, which one would you take over the other?


While this certainly should not entirely discredit what Lee accomplished this season, it does go to show that one must utilize some perspective when selectiving the leagues best pitcher. It is because of this perspective that Cliff Lee is the inferior pitcher to Roy Halladay in the American League.

2008 BBWAA American League Cy Young

I was reading a comment by Pete Toms which asked the question, "why do we care about the awards given by the BBWAA?" This is a very valid question.

Despite spending a lot of time reading about baseball, I rarely, if ever, will closely read a baseball column in the newspaper. If I am somewhere that happens to have a Toronto newspaper handy, I will eventually make it to the baseball portion of the sports section. But that is a rarity, maybe once a week.

So why do we care?

I suppose it is a matter of integrity. The winners of these awards will be immortalized in baseball history. The average fan will forever know that Tim Lincecum was the "best" pitcher in the National League during the 2008 season. But that same fan shouldn't have to personally evaluate the performance of each pitcher in the National League during that season to figure out who was the second best.

That is, since the BBWAA do not properly evaluate the players merits, if the average baseball fan wants to know, for example, who the top three pitchers were, they will have to do their own homework. This is due to the fact that the BBWAA simply cannot be trusted. The writers can make anyone they choose into stars, and slander any player that doesn't provide a good interview.

It is because of that desire to have a personal relationship with the players, that 'press' writers should stand off from voting for the post-season awards. Let them paint their pictures of the play on the field, but let the analysts do their jobs.


The reason for the tangent is in response to the BBWAA's American League Cy Young voting. While the voters did not swing and miss to the extent of their National League brethren, there was a great deal of voters who simply do not get it.

Cliff Lee won the award, and while there is certainly an argument supporting his candidacy, there is also an argument against it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this selection, although I would have taken the runner-up, Roy Halladay (explanation tomorrow). Rounding out those given votes were Francisco Rodriguez, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Mariano Rivera, Mike Mussina, and Ervin Santana.

I spend a lot of time harping on the BBWAA, and this award does not come away unscathed. Here are cases against the BBWAA based solely on the American League Cy Young ballots for the 2008 season. Put in other terms, if the writers credibility were to be up for trial, this would be one of the areas they could be attacked.

Case #1

Roy Halladay. As I mentioned, not picking Halladay as the winner is fine. What isn't fine is the 3 writers who left Doc off of their ballots altogether. The only possible excuse I could think up for these 3 writers, is that they felt so stupid for not naming Halladay as the 2nd best pitcher, that they simply left him off altogether.

There is a legitimate argument that Halladay was the best pitcher in the American League. That 9 writers felt he wasn't in the top 2 is embarrassing and evidence to the lack of understanding these writer have.

Case #2

Francisco Rodriguez. Other then saves, what category did Rodriguez lead American League relievers in? I'm not willing to look hard enough to find that category, but I will list some important ones that he trailed his leaguemates in.

• Save Percentage: KRod's 89% is outstanding, Rivera's 97.5% happens to be better. So too was Jensen Lewis' 93% rounding out the three American League relievers with 10 or more saves.
• Win Probability Added: Another area where Rodriguez had a fine season, albeit, not as fine as Rivera, Joakim Soria, and Bobby Jenks.
• Pitching Runs Created: Rodriguez wasn't even the best reliever on his team in this aspect. He trailed closers Rivera, Joe Nathan, and Sora.
• Win Shares Above Bench: Probably the most interesting stat to utilize here, and one that arguably convinced the Angels to let Rodriguez walk in Free Agency. KRod is tied as the third best closer in this category, behind Rivera and Soria, tied with Jonathan Papelbon and Nathan. Oh, KRod is also behind teammate (and rookie) Jose Arredondo.
• Adjusted Runs Prevented from Scoring: A key stat for relievers, not so key for closers specifically, but important nonetheless. For this category, Rodriguez ranks behind top closers Rivera, Nathan, Soria, Papelbon, and Jenks.
• Expected Wins Added Over a Replacement Level Pitcher: KRod finishes second in this category, behind Rivera.
• Value Over Replacement Player: Rivera, Nathan, and Soria all rate higher then Rodriguez here. Papelbon and Jenks trail Rodriguez by a marginal amount.

That is seven stats where Rodriguez trails Rivera in every single one, not to mention trailing Soria and Nathan in nearly every one. Seven stats where on average, Rodriguez compares very closely with Papelbon and Jenks-great closers in their own right, by Cy Young candidates?

Don't get me wrong, Rodriguez had a very strong season. Not only do closers have the pressure of shutting the door on some close games, but he was also dealing with the spotlight of breaking Bobby Thigpen's 18 year old record.

However, his performance was vastly inferior to Mariano Rivera's, and there is even an argument for a handful of other closers, even relievers, who performed at a higher level then Rodriguez. To hand top 3 votes to a player because of one category is ridiculous.


These are two major cases against the credibility of the BBWAA. Obviously the organization as a whole is not lacking credibility, but there are a good amount of writers whom should be scrapped from the voting process. Otherwise, baseball's post-season awards and the hall-of-fame will lose much of it's value.

I would truly like to see a major corporate sponsor step up, and put together a legitimate vote. One where the voters are educated analysts. One where home team biases are eliminated through facts and information-not lead stories.

That is, imagine a situation where some of baseball's brightest minds, Bill James, Rob Neyer, Joe Sheehan, I'll even give Ken Rosenthal a vote, and others. Couple this with "Pepsi presents..." and enough people would at least hear about this award to eventually legitimize it.

Dream on, dreamer...

2008 BBWAA National League Cy Young

"I started a joke, which started the whole world crying, but I didn't see that the joke was on me"

It's official, any sliver of credibility the BBWAA owned has been eliminated. It has been ripped to shreds, stamped on, torched, and discarded. While there is an argument to be made that this occurred a very long time ago, the writers have certainly outdone themselves this time.

The National League Cy Young should have come down to two pitchers; Tim Lincecum and Johan Santana. There is an argument that works in the favor of both pitchers. Where Lincecum was marginally more valuable-beating out Santana in WPA, Win Shares, PRC, and SNLVAR-Santana had a substantially more difficult schedule. While Lincecum is my choice, I can respect an individual who makes an intelligent and logical claim for Johan.

What I can't respect is the individual who calls for Brandon Webb to be the best pitcher in the National League. In fact, there is a legitimate argument against Webb being the best pitcher on his own team.

The BBWAA, however, found a way to further discredit the merits of post-season awards. Maybe they did so intentionally. Maybe their voting was out of protest. For whatever reason, we are stuck with a system that simplay has no value to the baseball world.

Today, the 2008 National League Cy Young Award winner was nominated. It was justly given to Tim Lincecum. While Lincecum was rewarded with 23 of 32 first place votes, for some strange reason four writers felt that Brandon Webb was the superior pitcher-hopefully we can get to the bottom of this.

Worse yet, there is a writer who left Lincecum off his ballot altogether. This only strikes a chord with me because there is one writer out of 32 who felt this way. One!

Being someone who traditionally has some obscure ways of drawing conclusions, and a skewed perspective of logic, I typically cannot argue with one person thinking outside the box. The problem is, Lincecum was clearly one of the top two pitchers in the National League this year. If he wasn't in the top two, there is no way he could justly be left off a ballot altogether. In fact, I am eager to hear what sort of skewed logic this writer came to.


While Lincecum winning the award is an impressive accomplishment, how much of it can Lincecum truly feel satisfied with, when the rest of the voting is a joke?

Brandon Webb, while an outstanding pitcher, he's probably one of the top 5 pitchers whom I would build a team around. However, he did not have the best statistical season of any other pitcher in the National League to warrant the first place votes he received. In fact, between him, Santana, Lincecum, Ryan Dempster, and Cole Hamels, he clearly had the worst statistical season of the bunch.

Thus, handing him second place votes is as much of a joke as the first place votes were (we can assume two of the four first place votes came from Arizona writers, the other two could have come from the morons who voted for Edinson Volquez for Rookie of the Year despite not being eligible for the award).

It is absolutely pathetic that Webb received runner-up votes over Johan Santana. What makes it so pathetic is the fact that the voters are going to turn to Webb's wins and winning percentage as evidence to his superiority.

I'm glad that despite all the information proving that wins and winning percentage are essentially useless statistics for pitchers there are still writers giving pitchers credit for them. I won't even go into the fact that Webb trailed Santana in every other meaningful statistic, but I think you get the point, this is embarrassing.

But let's put this into an analogy. By voting for Webb over Santana based soley on wins and winning percentage, the BBWAA are invariably handing this award to the player PLUS his team. That is, what if Webb received 2 or 3 fewer runs of support a game? Would that mean he pitched any worse?

What can we then say the Cy Young is based on. Value? If that is the case, then who was more valuable then CC Sabathia and Brad Lidge?


I think we can safely predict the American League Cy Young winner now, sorry Drunk Jays Fans.

The OLIB's 2008 NL Cy Young

In similar fashion to my American League Rookie of the Year pick, the NL Cy Young went from no-brainer, to borderline toss-up. In what was an open and shut case for Tim Lincecum, turned to a two horse race with him and Johan Santana. An impressive second half by Santana, fueled by an outstanding August/September, closed the gap that Lincecum created.

This is not to say that Lincecum fell apart in the second half, rather, to give Santana his due for an outstanding stretch run.

There was never really a question who the winner and runner-up for this award would be, as I selected Lincecum #1 and Santana #2. Where the question is raised occurs with the third best start in the National League. With 4 or 5 legitimate contenders, it took a variety of statistics to come to a conclusion of who the head of the rest of the pack would be.

Here is what I wrote for the BDD writer picks,

When I first sat down to make my picks, I wasn’t even going to look into the numbers. I figured I knew the story and didn’t need any convincing. While my opinion didn’t change after I eventually looked at the numbers, it became surprisingly close after looking at VORP, WPA, WS, PRC, and SNLVAR. Lincecum came away on top, with Santana finishing second, and fellow Canadian Ryan Dempster completing his full circle surprise season.

I’m not shocked that Dempster isn’t getting more play in the upcoming days of Free Agency, but I am shocked that he isn’t getting much love from writers on the Cy Young ballot.

I will be incredibly shocked if Dempster tops Dan Haren, Brandon Webb, Cole Hamels, and Edinson Volquez despite being substantially more qualified. In fact, half-season wonders CC Sabathia and Rich Harden are likely to get just as much respect as Dempster.

Which leads to an interesting dilemma-what is the Cy Young award? Is it for the leagues best pitcher, or for the leagues most valuable pitcher? In fact, aren't these two things one in the same?

That is, could any of the aforementioned full season National League pitchers have replaced Harden and specifically, Sabathia? If the answer is no, then how can another pitcher be tabbed as better? Worse yet, this adds Brad Lidge to what was supposed to be a fairly straight forward discussion.


It is fortunate for Tim Lincecum that Johan Santana had such brutal bullpen support. Had the Mets simply been 'OK' at holding leads, Santana would have added an extra couple of wins and the Mets certainly would have found themselves in the playoffs. It would be that combination of meaningless statistics that would encourage the BBWAA to give this award to Santana.

That didn't happen, and despite what will be a fairly tight competition, the award will go to the appropriate pitcher.

Similarly, the runner-up will go to the appropriate pitcher, being Santana. Many anticipated this to be Santana's award to lose entering the season. While he didn't hurt his case, Lincecum was simply the superior pitcher and the BBWAA won't screw this one up.

Where it gets interesting is the area that I mentioned, from the third best pitcher in the National League, down to the tenth. I can't see a scenario where Lincecum and Santana don't receive the top two votes from any of the writers, however I also did not envision a scenario where Joey Votto would receive a vote over Geovanny Soto.

That being said, for argument's sake I'll stick with Lincecum and Santana collecting all of the top two votes, with a 32 writer toss-up among third place ballots. Clearly Dempster should take third place, but I imagine it will go to Sabathia or Lidge. It won't be justified, but people won't be overly disappointed.

As fans, we are fortunate that the writers must submit their ballots prior to the start of the playoffs. If not, Cole Hamel's miraculous post-season performance may have been enough to put him into the Lincecum-Santana discussion.

2008 BBWAA Rookie of the Year Picks (AL & NL)

The ballots are officially in and the American and National League Rookie of the Year awards have been provided. In the American League, it is Evan Longoria, and Geovanny Soto who takes the cake in the National League.

These picks were to be expected, neither coming as a surprise to anyone. However, the BBWAA are not getting off easy here, as they did botch part of the voting.

Evan Longoria won the American League's award as an unanimous choice, collecting each of the 28 first place votes. Longoria, as the linked article states, was the only player to show up on each of the 28 ballots-which is part surprising, part disgusting.

The most second place ballots went to the Chicago White Sox infielder Alexei Ramirez. Certainly Ramirez is worthy of being on ones AL Rookie of the Year ballot, however, he clearly was not the second best rookie in the American League. Finishing third in VORP is support for that.

Worse yet, Jacoby "I fell off the table" Ellsbury, took third place. This clearly has more to do with Ellsbury being a Red Sox then it does with his actual statistical line. Keep in mind, Ellsbury essentially lost his starting job down the stretch-and entirely in the playoffs. According to Baseball Prospectus' VORP statistic, Ellsbury rated as the 6th best rookie position player in the American League. In other words, he was hardly worthy of being on anyones ballot, let alone being the third highest voted rookie.

However, the Ellsbury pick is not even the most embarrassing issue presented here. That honor belongs to the 23 writers who left Mike Aviles off their ballots altogether. To hear the explanation of any of these writers is assured to be one of the bigger jokes in recent baseball writing. There really is not an explanation for taking Ellsbury over Aviles, but even giving those 5 writers a mulligan, we still had far too many of baseballs journalists (experts in their field) ignoring the rookie that could have won the award, and at the very worst, should have finished in the top 3.


The National League, at first glance, also managed to get things right. Except, wait...What?!? Somebody actually thought that Joey Votto's 2008 season was superior to Geovanny Soto. WHO?!?

Soto eclipsed Votto in every win and value stat available. In fact, it is hardly even close in most cases. Even if we ignore position, Soto was a vastly superior first year player.


The BBWAA again proved why they have little to no credibility. While the writers did manage to pick the proper winners, the widespread failures to accurately rate the players ruins the overall value of this award. How can Evan Longoria truly feel proud of this award when the voting is so inaccurate?

Once the writers make their individual picks known, I will add further reflection. For now, I am going to assume that the writers simply forgot Mike Aviles played. However, I'm certain this mulligan will be waived once we read comments such as 'Jacoby Ellsbury stole so many bases and played for a winning team'.

Disgusting!

2008 American and National League Rookie of the Year

For some strange reason, the BBWAA decide that the Rookie of the Year awards are the least important of all the post-season awards. Given that the awards are presented together, on the first day of the awards season, rather then on individual days, as is the case with the other player awards.

In any event, the American and National League Rookie of the Year award will be presented tomorrow, and as the first post-season awards post, I will explain how things will play out here.

First, I will re-provide my top 3 candidates for each award (5 for MVP). Recalling back to my 2007 Awards,

When selecting who will win the awards, I take into account several factors. The first, is how a player performs in respect to their position. For the record, I am not going to pick a player who performed at a high level at a brutal position, but wasn't even in the top 5 or 10 in 'win' stats.

The second criteria is 'Win' stats? The Hardball Times owns a stat for this, as does Baseball Prospectus; called Win Shares Above Bench (WSAB) and Value over Replacement Player (VORP) respectively. I will reference these stats in and out of my writings, for the most part, utilizing both.

Next, I will look at exceptional play of a player. A streak, a record, or really something they did on an individual level to lift the team to higher levels. That is not to say a player from a losing team can not win an award, although admittedly, those players are at a slight disadvantage.

In addition to the aforementioned criteria, I will also include fielding, which WSAB touches on. While Adam Everett is not going to get the nod over David Ortiz, it is something to be considered at a certain level.

Another factor to consider, and one I pointed out at the end of the regular season, is a players value relative to his team. To the BBWAA, a player on a playoff caliber team is rewarded because he helped his team get over the hump. But how often is it the play of a single player that pushed a team into the playoffs? How few players are not interchangeable with another at the same position?

I'm thinking specifically of Dustin Pedroia here. Would the Red Sox be that much worse off had Ian Kinsler been their everyday second basemen?

In addition to this, we've all heard the speculation that a players play is affected based on the players around him, how about adding in a winning clubhouse? Or playing in games that matter? Fact is, it's as easy to argue that a player on a playoff caliber team was positively influenced by his surrounding cast as it is to argue that the specific player is the reason the team is as good as it is.

The second aspect of these posts will be to predict who the BBWAA will pick as their award winner. I will provide some evidence, however the majority of the reflection will occur once the awards are provided.


A couple weeks ago, I posted my AL and NL Rookie Picks as a part of a poll held at Baseball Digest Daily. Here is further analysis of those picks:

American League

At first look, Evan Longoria appears to be the clear cut favorite for AL ROY. He hit in the heart of the order for the eventual American League champions. However, upon further inspection, things begin to tighten between he and Mike Aviles.

The major argument supporting Aviles is his production relative to position. That is, Aviles' .833 OPS was over 140 points higher then the American League average production from a short stop. What makes this 140 that much more valuable is the fact that Aviles is arguably the best fielding short stop in the American League.

By comparison, third base is a substantially more productive position, where the AL average OPS is nearly 80 points higher then that of the league's average for shortstop.

Longoria, while not as superior relative to league average, still posted an OPS nearly 120 points higher then American League average. Thus, the -20 points in league average OPS that Longoria provided compared to Aviles is not significant enough to discredit the +40 points in OPS that Longoria holds over Aviles heads up.

While the fielding is still an issue to be considered, that Longoria was superior to Aviles in 3 of 5 win and value categories is reason for me to hand this award to Longoria. The following table provides the categories utilized and where one player outperformed the other:

To me, the Rookie of the Year in the American League is a two horse race. I gave my third place vote to Brad Ziegler. Ziegler's season was nothing short of phenomenal. He took over as the closer in Oakland, and despite having a low strikeout rate, coupled with a brutal strikeout to walk ratio, Ziegler managed to avoid allowing runs.

Despite a legitimate argument existing for Mike Aviles to win the ROY award, it will come as no surprise to me if he isn't even in the American League's top five among the BBWAA. With players such as Jacoby Ellsbury and Alexei Ramirez providing writer friendly statistics, such as home runs, stolen bases, and playing on playoff caliber teams, it isn't difficult to imagine Aviles being left off of many writers ballots.

Considering that two of seven BDD writers left Aviles off of their top three ballot altogether, seeing Aviles on the outside of the top five-while unjustifiable-is something I expect.

Here's how I anticipate the BBWAA writers to screw this thing up:

1. Evan Longoria - Has all the things voters look for,
2. Alexei Ramirez - Flashy, and on a playoff team,
3. Jacoby Ellsbury - Broke team record for steals by a rookie,
4. Joba Chamberlain - If healthy, could have ran away with this award, and
   
5. Denard Span - There actually isn't any rationale for him in the top 7 or 8, so he's a perfect pick for the BBWAA.

With Brad Ziegler, Armando Galarraga, Chris Davis, as well as homer picks such as Ben Francisco, and Justin Masterson, there is a chance that Aviles falls out of the top 10.

National League

By not having a substantial second half swoon, Geovanny Soto made it easy for voters to get this one right. There really is not any other player that a writer could legitimately argue for over Soto, and if a writer did in fact try to, there is an argument for that writer to lose their BBWAA membership.

Where is gets interesting is with the next 2-4 spots. In fact, by having such a solid season, Soto actually ruined what would have been a very exciting NL ROY ballot. With Joey Votto, Jair Jurrjens, Hiroki Kuroda, Kosuke Fukudome, among others, there is not another clear cut next in line.

I decided to put Votto as the second best rookie from the 2008 season in the National League. Admittedly, it is because Votto is Canadian, but statistically, I can back this argument up through utilizing Baseball Prospectus' VORP measure, where Votto puts up a mark of 34.0 to Jurrjens' 33.0. In other words, it is a toss-up.


As I previously mentioned, there are specific stats which the BBWAA prefer. One of those stats, how the players team performed. Because of this, Fukudome and Kuroda will receive an unnecessary amount of votes, however I don't feel they will crack the top 3.

The BBWAA will get this one right and take the following top 5:

1. Geovanny Soto - No more obvious of a pick league-wide,
2. Jair Jurrjens - Not missing 'significant' time helps his case,
3. Joey Votto - If the season was another month or two, he eclipses Soto,
4. Hiroki Kuroda - Not really a rookie, but the BBWAA has never cared, so why start now? and,
5. Jay Bruce - A hot start coupled with improvement during the second half, those are stats, right?

As was the case with the Gold Gloves, I will post the actual results as they become public. Reactions and reflections will also be provided, so stay tuned for those.

2008 American League Gold Gloves

ESPNews released the AL Gold Gloves this afternoon, with the managers and coaches doing their best to not disappoint. If anyone questioned the credibility of this award, they have a perfect amount of fuel now.

C - Joe Mauer

This is a fine pick, but not one that I would spend time debating anyways. Mauer is very athletic, so it doesn't surprise me that he would be one of the top defensive catchers. What bothers me, is that during ESPNews' presentation, they kept harping on Mauer winning the AL batting title.

1B - Carlos Pena

This one is fine, although I imagine the difference has to do with Pena's bat. That said, I have no problem if the voters are using hitting as a tie breaker. Although I would take a look at team fielding first.

That is, consider what a top fielder can do to the players around him. Adding a top defensive short stop can allow a third basemen to shade the left field line a little more.

2B - Dustin Pedroia

Pedroia winning this award must signal something. Either the total and utter disregard for defensive measures, or Pedroia not winning the American League MVP. While one shouldn't have an affect on another, it does. Pedroia doesn't deserve to be in the top two, despite being a pretty good fielder.

As Sheehan stated yesterday, this is an award that is based on looks. How many times was Mark Ellis on National Television? How many times, during a Sox broadcast are the cameras focused on Pedroia? This award makes sense from that point of view.

3B - Adrian Beltre

Similar to the Pena selection, this one is fine. Beltre makes some careless mistakes, but he also gets to some balls that no other third basemen should.

SS - Michael Young

This isn't as terrible as the Pedroia selection, although it is close! But in a different way. Where Ellis was the obvious choice for the second base award, Pedroia is a solid fielder. Young, on the other hand is terrible! He does, however, benefit from playing a position where there isn't a clear cut winner-well, an obvious clear cut winner.

The fact remains that the Rangers would prefer to not have Young playing short stop for the foreseeable future. However, his bat has slipped so much that it would hurt more to have him as a league average fielding third basemen as the offensive expectations are much higher then they are at short.

The silver lining, at least Derek Jeter didn't win.

LF - Grady Sizemore

This is where the system is entirely flawed. If Sizemore was a left fielder, he would presumably win this award. However, he isn't. The same way that Francisco Rodriguez isn't a starting pitcher, and subsequently does not qualify for any pitching titles.

That said, it is disappointing that Sizemore is listed as the worst of the Gold Glove outfielders, despite obviously being the best.

CF - Torri Hunter

Terrible. Absolutely terrible. The problem is, Hunter is a pretty good fielder. But handing him this award based on reputation and a 'perfect fielding percentage' (really-impressive, but who cares) adds reason to disregard the Gold Gloves altogether.

Oh, and the fact that 2008's best defensive outfielder was clearly Carlos Gomez, who replaced Hunter. This is arguably the worst pick of the entire award, although not many people will raise a hand to question it based on Hunter's reputation.

RF - Ichiro Suzuki

Ichiro does not deserve this, although like Sizemore and Hunter, he is at least a good fielder. His reputation and offensive production is the reason why he is again given this award.

The AL's outfield isn't in as much of shambles as the NL is, so I cannot harp too long. At least the league's worst minus defender didn't win a Gold Glove as occurred with Nate McLouth (who actually ranked dead last in all of baseball).

P - Mike Mussina

This doesn't really matter to me. Mussina won, presumably based on tradition and after having a surprisingly strong season. The award should have went to DJF favoUrite chubby ginger, Jesse Litsch.


Joe Sheehan, of Baseball Prospectus again on ESPNews, reiterates the fact that players are winning awards with their bats and reputations. He agrees with my assertion that Ellis and Gomez are certainly worthy of the Gold Glove this year.

The award is in shambles and the voting process needs to be reevaluated. I'm not sure how much longer this can go on before people simply ignore the award altogether. A rogue Gold Glove by a competing baseball mit company could be a start to shaking up the awards top to bottom.

2008 American League 'Shoulda' Gold Gloves

The American League Gold Gloves will be handed out today at 4 PM EST on ESPNews. Similar to yesterday, I will kick-off this event by posting who the actual winners should be.

As a reminder, the main tools I will be utilizing come from The Fielding Bible (TFB) and The Hardball Times (THT). TFB's plus/minus (+/-) tool will be one of the measures considered, with THT's Revised Zone Rating (RZR) being the other.

The American League 'Shoulda' Gold Glovers

1B - Lyle Overbay

Overbay didn't bring a lot with his bat this season, which will probably ruin any chance he has at actually winning this award. However, finishing first in RZR and second in +/- are reason enough to give this award to Overbay. Adding in the fact that he made the most out of zone plays (OOZ) only further cements Overbay as the American League's best fielding first basemen. The runner-up for this award goes to Carlos Pena, with Daric Barton looking over his shoulder.

It is interesting to note that had Casey Kotchman or Mark Teixeira spent the entire year in the American League this award would have been much more difficult to hand out.

2B - Mark Ellis

Unlike the National League, there isn't a legitimate argument for another second basemen to win this award. There is Mark Ellis, and then everybody else. Leading the AL in both RZR and +/-, Ellis is far and away the best fielding second basemen in the league. The runner-up is sure handed Placido Polanco. Don't be surprised to see Dustin Pedroia take this award, although he will certainly be undeserving of such.

Spoiler alert! Baseball Musings is reporting that Dusty has infact won this award. This certainly has got to be one of the biggest mistakes for this years award.

3B - Jack Hannahan

Initially, I figured this to be a no-brainer, Adrian Beltre all the way. However, Hannahan, not Beltre, is the league leader in RZR, while coming in second to Beltre for +/-. Despite putting up a phenomenal 78 OOZ, Beltre sits nearly 60 points behind Hannahan in RZR.

I may change my view on this once the Probabalistic Model of Range (PMR) is provided, and cannot argue with Beltre winning this award (consequently, he is my runner-up), but for now, I have to stick with Hannahan-do the numbers lie?

SS - Mike Aviles

Wow! Where did this guy come from again? Possibly Aviles' fielding may have me reconsidering my previous vote for Evan Longoria as AL Rookie of the Year. Among players with over 600 innings at short stop, Aviles leads all American League players in RZR, +/-, and PMR. That is certainly note-worthy.

The runner-up for this award is Marco Scutaro. I am utterly shocked that Scutaro is such a better fielder then teammate John McDonald.

LF - Carl Crawford

This is one of the easiest choices to make and one I am certain even the voters can manage to hit on. Crawford leads the AL in both RZR and +/-, and both by a substantially large margin.

Runner-up: Luke Scott. Despite landing fairly low on RZR, finishing second to CC in +/- helps his cause. Johnny Damon would make a claim for runner-up had he not been shuffled about the outfield as much in 2008.

CF - Carlos Gomez

Unfortunately I was only able to watch Gomez play a handful of times. Fortunately he impressed me each and everytime. Gomez is a lock to be an annual contender for the 'Shoulda' Gold Glove. The scary thing about the Minnesota outfield, Gomez isn't even their best fielder, that belongs to Denard Span, who did not play enough to qualify for the right field award-despite certainly being worthy of it.

The American League is ripe with incredible, young center fielders. With all possessing the offensive tools to keep them in the starting lineup, it is a matter of staying healthy. Because of this depth, it is nearly impossible to name a runner-up. Adam Jones didn't make TFB's +/- list, but he finished atop THT's RZR. He was also voted as the 4th best center fielder by TFB's poll. Good enough for me.

RF - Franklin Gutierrez

If Frankie stays in town and is provided with his fair share of plate appearances, the Indians could have one scary defensive outfield. Gutierrez led the American League in RZR and +/- among right fielders with more then 500 innings at the position. In fact, there is hardly a legitimate contender for this award. Gutierrez has the range of a center fielder, with the arm of-well, an awesome right fielder.

The runner-up for this award is the Blue Jays Alexis Rios.


I've already leaked one winner, who is completely undeserving of the award. Unfortunately this is the major flaw of a system that has zero stipulations to the voting process other then not voting for ones own player. However, even if managers and coaches were to look at the numbers, they would certainly look at the wrong ones. Even if the managers and coaches were given a set of 'rules' to follow, they would misinterpret them the way the BBWAA does.

Sadly, the credibility of the Gold Gloves lessens with every passing season. Players with a 'reputation' of flashy style are often the winners, while those who do the best job at preventing runs are left off the board.

2008 National League Gold Gloves

The Rawlings Gold Glove awards are given to those who displayed the leagues most superior fielding, as voted on by managers and coaches-not the BBWAA as I previously mentioned. Each year there are snubs as well as votes given to players who are certainly not deserving of, and this year did not disappoint.

Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus was on ESPNews' The Hot List this afternoon, and asserted that often times players are given credit for what they did with their bat. In addition to this, according to Sheehan, is a 'viewed' award as much as it statistical. He did not claim this to be an entirely accurate perspective, rather, he suggested that the best defensive player may not win an award simply due to not doing anything flashy, or having fewer opportunities.

Here's who the managers and coaches gave their awards out to for the National League this season:

C - Yadier Molina

As I mentioned in the 'Shoulda' Awards, I'm not going to go through and judge a catcher. Molina seems like a fine choice to me.

1B - Adrian Gonzalez

This is bordering on criminal. Probably the biggest mistake of the National League Gold Glove award was not handing this one to Albert Pujols, but making this worse, and nearly discrediting the worth of the Gold Gloves altogether, was giving this to Adrian Gonzalez.

By all rights, Gonzalez should win this award. He is probably the most athletic first basemen in the National League. If not the most, then second behind Derek Lee. The Fielding Bible doesn't rank Gonzalez in the top 4, while The Hardball Times ranks Gonzalez as the 10th best fielding first basemen. This was clearly all about fielding percentage, where Gonzalez ranks as the best National League first basemen (tied).

2B - Brandon Phillips

While the voters got this one wrong, it isn't as bad as the Gonzalez vote. Phillips, while a fairly strong fielder, is still a little bit worse then Chase Utley. But Phillips, like Derek Jeter, finds his way onto highlight reels all of the time and is a flashy fielder.

3B - David Wright

I can understand giving this award to Wright. Ryan Zimmerman missing nearly half the season certainly put him at a disadvantage. Wright makes more flashy plays and is on a team that more people pay attention to. If I was picking the best defensive third basemen in the National League, either one would suffice.

I wonder how much of Wright winning this award is based on his reputation?

SS - Jimmy Rollins

The voters got this one correct. Good on them. The issue, however, is that the voters are probably going to keep giving this award to Rollins based on reputation.

Here is where the Gold Glove Award has another major flaw. Voters are told to group outfielders in a single cluster. This is clearly flawed, as an outfield with the three best center fielders would not obviously be superior then an outfield with the three best fielders at their respective positions. It is what it is, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

ESPNews aligned the outfield winners as I will list.

RF - Shane Victorino

Victorino had a phenomenal season in center this year. It was specifically phenomenal considering it was his first shot at the position. Even if we simply list the three best outfielders, there is no way to rate him ahead of Chris Young. Unless of course we are considering a players contributions with their bat.

CF - Carlos Beltran

Similar to Phillips and Wright, I am fine with giving this award to Beltran. I do not believe he is the best candidate, but he's one of the top two or three, so it's close. Playing in a big market on a big stage, he is clearly going to be seen more frequently. He is also a veteran with a reputation as an excellent fielder. Having a great bat doesn't hurt in the voters eyes.

LF - Nate McLouth

Joe Sheehan believes this was more of an honorary award, one given to McLouth to reward him for having such an underrated season and making significant strides as a player. He deserves this award almost as much as Adrian Gonzalez deserves his. To again ignore Young is insulting.

P - Greg Maddux

The crime here is that this is still being called the National Leagues Gold Glove for a Pitcher. Why not just name it after Maddux?

As I mentioned, this is an award based on looks. While Maddux fields his position as well as anyone else, he also has the most opportunities to show off his glove to voters. No one is going to argue with this selection.


With only two glaring errors and borderline mistakes, the voters did not entirely ruin the credibility of the Gold Glove Award-although they did come close.

The American League Gold Gloves will be announced tomorrow at 4 PM EST.

2008 National League 'Shoulda' Gold Gloves

The Baseball Writers of America Association traditionally botch giving out awards, none is more obvious then with the Gold Glove Awards. The BBWAA typically enjoy giving awards to fielders who are also strong hitters. In addition to that, the writers give credit to a player based on reputation and making highlight reel plays. While highlight reel plays are exciting to view, they are often the result of poor positioning, a weak arm, mediocre reaction, and/or a lack of speed. Every time Derek Jeter is in the air making an 'acrobatic' throw, imagine Jimmy Rollins making that same play, flat on his feet.

Another issue, is the use of a pointless statistic. Fielding Percentage is a subjective measure and is more a product of a players individual ability. That is, a ball that Chase Utley gets to may not be a ball that Luis Castillo can get to. Thus, if Utley gets to the ball but makes an errant throw, allowing a 'base hit', should he get punished for getting to the ball while Castillo watched the ball roll into the outfield?

Thus, I'm going to take a look at two of the most prominent defensive statistics that actually matter. Statistics which truly look at how a player fields.

The first statistic I will look at will be The Fielding Bibles plus/minus (+/-) measure. At the Fielding Bible, the authors watch every defensive play over the course of the year and figure out how many runs a player saves compared to league average. A rate of +10 would be the same as earning a win for The Hardball Times' win shares.

The second statistic I will look at will be The Hardball Times' revised zone rating (RZR). Here is THT's explanation of RZR,

Revised Zone Rating is the proportion of balls hit into a fielder's zone that he successfully converted into an out....To get a full picture of a player's range, you should evaluate both his Revised Zone Rating and his plays made out of zone (OOZ). You can read more about the Revised Zone Ratings in this article.

These measure's will be weighted equally to come up with an unofficial list of who should win a Gold Glove-which is to be announced later this afternoon on ESPNews.

Without further adieu, the 2008 'Shoulda' Gold Glove winners for the National League:

1B - Albert Pujols

Pujols rates as the #1 defensive first basemen by both RZR and +/-. This is an easy award to give away and furthers Pujols' legacy as one of the best baseball players of all time. The runner-up for this away is Lance Berkman who ranked just behind Joey Votto in +/-, but a fair distance ahead of him in RZR.

2B - Chase Utley

Utley more then doubles the next best second basemen in +/- , ranking just below the NL's runner-up Brandon Phillips. Utley is nearing the same echelon as Pujols as the total package, being both an elite hitter and an elite fielder. The big difference, most teams will allow their first basemen to be a mediocre fielder if he is an elite hitter. Whereas second base, the more difficult position to field, is expected to have a slick fielder, albeit with a weak bat.

3B - Ryan Zimmerman

The most difficult position to award to this point, Zimmerman rates as the 4th best third basemen according to THT's RZR, however he is the only one of THT's top 5 which made TFB's top 10. Zimmerman has always been considered a plus fielder but never given credit for such. Undergoing major surgery twice in the last year only increases how impressive of a fielder he is. The runner-up is the New York Mets David Wright.

SS - Jimmy Rollins

J-Roll rates as the National Leagues top +/- fielding short stop and number two in RZR. I imagine the BBWAA will get this right and take Rollins as he has a sound bat to compliment his slick fielding. Yunel Escobar is undervalued as a fielder, and if the Padres can find a taker for Khalil Greene, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to utilize Yunel as the center piece of a Jake Peavy trade.

LF - Matt Holliday

I am as shocked as the next person as I had always thought of Holliday as a terrible fielder. Holliday rates as the second best fielder among those who qualified in RZR and the third best fielder in +/-. The reason I am giving him the nod over Willie Harris and Connor Jackson is because of the major discrepancy in playing time. Harris is the runner-up but nearly wins the award due to making 45 out of zone (OOZ) plays in less then half the playing time of Holliday (Holliday made 50 OOZ plays).

CF - Chris Young

It is evident that Carlos Beltran has the best shot at winning this award, but Young actually rates out as the superior fielding when utilizing both statistics. Beltran leads Young by one point in +/- whereas Young leads Beltran by over 2% in RZR. A very close race and arguably a toss-up.

Cody Ross was arguably the best center fielder in the National League. That certainly comes as a surprise to me as Ross clearly looks out of position in cavernous Dolphin Stadium. What knocks him from the competition is his lack of OOZ plays and plays altogether.

RF - Randy Winn

Finishing first and second in RZR and +/- respectively has Winn at the top of the heap in the National League. It is a good thing that Winn is a solid fielder, as his bat is not overly impressive and would not be tolerated if he was below average. The runner-up goes to Brian Giles.

It is interesting to note that each of the outfielders mentioned here, come from poor hitters parks, parks that are traditionally knows for having large outfields. I am curious if these fielders are benefitting from either a fly ball friendly pitching staff, or by a more all-out style of play.


With the awards being given out later this afternoon, it will be interesting to see how much the BBWAA allow a subjective measure such as fielding percentage weigh into their respective decisions.

I left out the catching and pitching positions because each has much to do with their respective teams. For example, a catcher may struggle with throwing out runners because his pitchers do not help with the running game, and vice versa. A catchers reputation also limits who runs, and when. One way to measure such, would be to look at a team's ERA while a specific catcher is behind the dish. This, however, could also be a result of being a 'personal catcher' to a really good pitcher.

In terms of a pitchers gold glove, there are certainly pitchers that are phenomenal with the mit, but a lack of playing time, as well as being of secondary concern to a pitcher is my rationale for omitting pitchers from this list. It would be like utilizing a pitchers hitting when awarding the National League Cy Young.