First, I’m glad you’ve come around to my argument that there should be two awards, though YF firmly believes the MVP should be for the player of the year, with some newly named award for the player voted most valuable to his own team–a lesser award. But here again, with this second award–let’s just call it The Posada–we return to the value question. What precisely constitutes value, and how can it possibly be measured? Who contributes most to his team’s success? Who creates the most revenue for his fr anchise? Who would be the highest paid player in a free market (the literalist interpretation)? How can you compare one player’s contribution to his own team versus another player’s contribution to a different team? Isn’t this an apples-to-oranges compari son? Is Angel Berroa–look at KC’s record with him compared to last year without–really more valuable than A-Rod? The sabermatrician has formulas that can put some objectivity behind questions of performance value (Which player produces the most runs? Which player is most productive above the average at his position? Total player rating weighted for defense, etc.). These numbers remove the impossible subjectivity of cross-team evaluation, and more fairly reward the player with the best on-field performance. Finally, as to your Marroth question, the answer is that the Tigers would be in about the same place. Marroth’s winning percentage is only marginally higher than his team’s. So if we say that his losses provided them essentially no value–it’s not like he was dominat ing opponents or “saving” the bullpen during these appearances–than all we’re talking about is the differential between his wins and what the team would have won in those same 8 games, on average. So let’s say about 1.5 games (you can do the math yourself, and if you really want to be accurate you can adjust it for the team’s results in his no-decisions).
Posted by YF on 9/22/2003 12:58:04 AM