Player Review: M-V-P M-V-P M-V-P

by rglass44 on Nov 12, 2008 10:41 AM EST Comment 22 comments

According to the Tampa Bay chapter of the Baseball Writers Association of America, Jason Bartlett was the Most Valuable Player of the Tampa Bay Rays in 2008. According to most everyone else, he wasn't. Justin Inaz's Total Value Listing has him as the sixth most valuable... position player. Joe Posnaski detailed the case against him quite effortlessly here. So, what in the world did the local baseball media that no one else did?

Since I am not a mind-reader, I decided to look at the stats instead (I am far more adept at reading them then tealeaves, minds, or anything else of the psychic variety). Taking a look at Bartlett's year does not inspire great confidence in a team where he is the most valuable player.

At the plate he did not exactly set the world on fire. His slash line was .286/.329/.361/.690. The average AL short-stop posted a .266/.319/.375/.694. So, he was somewhere from average to below-average there. His wOBA was .318, good for a wOBA+ of 95. That is below-average. Over 600 PAs he would be worth -9.8 runs below average. These don't seem like MVP numbers.

When acquired from Minesota, Bartlett was considered a wizz with the glove who would not kill you at the dish. Well, he certainly didn't light it up at the plate, but he definitely did not seem to kill us with his bat. "How was his glovework?" you may ask. Well, according to every defensive metric I could find, it rates somewhere from average to below average. Sean Smith's Averaged Zone Rating Runs from STATS and BIS had him at +.2 runs, about average. He ranked 12th in the Probabilistic Model of Range on BaseballMusings.com. He ranked 19th for short-stops in the Fielding Bible's new rankings (down from 5 and 7 the two previos years).

Looking at Jason Bartlett's 2008, it is very, very hard to see why he was annointed team MVP. The difference between JoePos and others who grilled this selection and the TB BBWAA is the baggage involved at the SS position in Tampa Bay. This is the only explanation I can give for the selection.

Last year, for instance, the Rays trotted out five players to play short-stop: Josh Wilson, Brendan Harris, Ben Zobrist, Jorge Velandia, and Joel Guzman. This year that fearsome fivesome has started a total of 90 games at SS in the bigs, and three of them did not receive a big-league at bat. Perhaps they weren't big league short-stops last year.

Last year, the 5 of them rated out as one of the worst defensive short-stop groups in baseball. They were -18 in Sean Smith's Averaged Zone Rating Runs from STATS and BIS. Throw in the fact that they were as bad per 600 PAs as Bartlett (-9.67 RAA), and you can see just how bad this unit was. The SS position last year for the Devil Rays was worth about -30 runs. This year it was worth -9.6 runs. That is a huge increase.

This is the only explanation I can give for Jason Bartlett as team MVP. The other candidates were all here last year (and mainly put up better numbers) except Longoria. The upgrade from Aki to Longo was probably bigger, but not in the eyes of the TB BBWAA. I think they saw Bartlett as the symbol of the changing of the guard in Tampa Bay.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Per his defense

As far as I can tell, there is no park adjustment for defense. The commonly held belief, I’m not saying it is correct just that it is commonly held, is that the Trop’s infield is faster that others with natural grass. This could account for Bartlett’s decreased range statistics this season. Otherwise, it seems unlikely that he would make such a precipitous decline in fielding metrics that rated him highly the past few seasons. One could also speculate that his knee injury hampered his range, but anecdotally I noticed no difference before and after the injury, for what that’s worth.

He did have some throwing problems through out the season, but his steady defense up the middle (combined with that of BJ) was a key factor in the success of this team. Let’s remember that the Rays actually scored (774) this season than they did in 2007 (784). Thus, while it may be a bit of a stretch to name him MVP, I think one should not undervalue the consistency he brought to this team.

by RaysTheRoof on Nov 12, 2008 11:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Is the turf in Minny any slower?

by rglass44 on Nov 12, 2008 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying I don't trust snappy defensive metrics

I think they’re a piece of the puzzle when evaluating a defender and am in awe of the work that goes into these articles and databases. Truly brilliant stuff. I do, however, find it interesting and maybe suspect that the two chief MI combined for ~-26 runs this year on a team that won the AL pennant and which is well-regarded in the province of preventing runs.

I’m not saying the stats are wrong here, because I’m not smart enough to come up with something that proves otherwise; I just think thought it interesting.

by PlayOnWords on Nov 12, 2008 11:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Subtract "think" from that last sentence.

/moron

by PlayOnWords on Nov 12, 2008 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do, however, find it interesting and maybe suspect that the two chief MI combined for ~-26 runs this year on a team that won the AL pennant and which is well-regarded in the province of preventing runs.

I think you’re confused. Aki was +.1, and Bartlett is +.2. That puts them a little above average combined. With some error built in they could be in the top 5-10 for IF combos which sounds about right.

by rglass44 on Nov 12, 2008 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your article and those PMR articles on BTBS show

-17 runs for Aki and -9 for JB.

I might be reading those wrong, though…is I?

by PlayOnWords on Nov 12, 2008 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

PMR is not the end-all beat-all

Aki is -17 there and JB is +7. That puts them at -10. Aki’s range is bad for a 2B, and you’ll get little argument from most. He did rate 5th in DP ranking in the fielding bible. He is also pretty sure-handed. If you factor those things in maybe it increases a little bit. The numbers quoted in the above comment are the combined BIS and STATS numbers, which I think I might be more confident in.

by rglass44 on Nov 12, 2008 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lo siento

I thought your initial citation of -9.6 runs was in reference to a PMR article for whatever reason…SBN conformity or something. You are the superior mind. Thanks for the assist!

by PlayOnWords on Nov 12, 2008 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Per Topkin

He is…..When we see the AL MVP votes on Friday, we’ll see how incompetent our “lead writer” is if he doesn’t vote for Bartlett to have a 1st place vote! If he he the team MVP, then he should get at least 1 Top 3 vote, yes?

Joe

by joedobr on Nov 12, 2008 12:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

no

by RaysTheRoof on Nov 12, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No

The two awards are totally unrelated. In fact, no matter who one thinks is the Rays’ MVP, he would not be in contention for league MVP or even in the top 5.

As for the choice by the TB writers, I think people are being too narrow and dogmatic in judging the decision. I did hear Topkin and I think 3 other local writers/media people discuss the choice on “The Press Box” but do not remember their arguments, just that they were agreed it was a legitimate choice. And as much as I like Posnanski, he often is very shallow in his analysis when he is not up close to the situation. His recent mocking of the nickname “Big Game James” as applied to Shields is another example of his occasionally narrow approach.

When I read of it, I was mildly surprised, but not the least put out. There are many reasons he might have been selected. One might be that it is generally accepted that a huge part of the Rays’ improvement was due to defense, and the shortstop is the keystone to any defense. That is especially true when one compares Bartlett to last year’s shortstops, as rglass44 mentions. So Bartlett’s selection might simply be as a stand-in for the entire defensive improvement that played so large a part in the Rays’ success.

I won’t quarrel or quibble with the stats. I respect them and think they are critical in any evaluation. But I also think we need to leave some room for other reasons to honor players, and given that nobody on the Rays really stands out with a spectacular season, and the oft-repeated view that it was truly a full roster contribution that identified the Rays this year, the selection of Bartlett is entirely defensible.

by bobr on Nov 12, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Topkin's published reasoning was awful.

Plus taking a swipe at Posnanski and Law is pretty ridiculous.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 12, 2008 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I assume that this is the published reasoning you refer to:

“There are "experts” around the baseball world questioning the Tampa Bay BBWAA chapter’s election of SS Jason Bartlett as the Rays’ MVP. And that shows how little they know.

The biggest improvement the Rays have made is allowing fewer runs, from 944 last season to 664, potentially the third largest decrease in major-league history. And the biggest reason has been the addition of Bartlett.

Though not the flashiest, he has had his share of highlights. More vital are the plays he makes that otherwise wouldn’t get made, another key factor in the Rays’ near-record decrease in ERA, from 5.53 last season to 3.80.

So for every stat about his lack of offense (.268 average, 37 RBIs, .690 OPS) or his number of errors (16, matching the fifth most among major-league shortstops) and low fielding percentage (.970, 16th among regular shortstops), or unimpressive manufactured meters such as range factor (12th best) and zone rating (ninth), consider this pretty good one about his value:

When Bartlett starts at shortstop, the Rays are 76-46. When he doesn’t, they are 20-19.

That makes him pretty valuable."
_________________________________________________________________________
I do not find it entirely convincing either. If you expect any columnist to adhere to the rigorous statistical analysis of sabermetrics, then few if any, even Posnanski, will satisfy. On the other hand, if you are willing to widen the view a bit and allow for symbolic considerations in granting honors, allow for broad interpretations of the purpose of the awards, then Topkin’s reasoning is perfectly acceptable. Bartlett represents a critical factor in the Rays’ success. He may not even be the foremost factor in that defensive improvement, but as the shortstop he represents the essential point. Given the desire (I imagine) to spread the wealth (of awards) a bit, and the fact that the image of the 2008 Rays is that of every one contributing, I think it both reasonable and rather pleasant that someone like Bartlett was chosen. No harm done and a legitimate point emphasized.

As for shots at Law and Posnanski, I assume you are referring to the phrase “And that shows how little they know”. I would have preferred a less aggressive phrasing, but having read Posnanski’s original attack on the choice, I think it apt. Just as Topkin and friends may have ignored advanced metrics, Posnanski entirely ignores context in his snippy criticism. His stance is dogmatic and narrow, in line with the worst snarkiness of FJM.

To be clear, I admire Posnanski immensely. I read his blog every day and his “Soul of Baseball” is a treasured part of my library. His embrace of progressive thinking is refreshing, but he is as prone to error as anyone, error often a result I think of overhasty judgments and deadline writing stress. I wish Topkin had not written his comment so it appears a swipe, but there is nothing ridiculous in criticizing Posnanski when his evaluation is questionable.

by bobr on Nov 12, 2008 3:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bob can you just write my thoughts from here on out

This is essentially what I was trying to get at with my post. “I think they saw Bartlett as the symbol of the changing of the guard in Tampa Bay.”

by rglass44 on Nov 12, 2008 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That was meant to sound complimentary, not snarky

I’m not sure which it comes off as rereading it.

by rglass44 on Nov 12, 2008 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I took it as a compliment. Thanks.

by bobr on Nov 12, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

biggest single-player reasons why runs allowed went down:

Garza
Balfour
Howell in relief instead of starting
Bartlett

And these might be close to Bartlett taking Harris’ place
Longoria instead of Aki at third
Aki instead of Upton/whoever at second
BJ instead of Dukes
Gross/etc instead of Delmon
Wheeler

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 12, 2008 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If the stats support this ranking

then all the more reason to accept the selection of Bartlett. It is unusual to choose a pitcher as MVP, and even if one did, I don’t think there is a perception that the role Balfour played was significantly more important than that of Howell. And I doubt many would have argued that Garza was more valuable than Shields. But no matter how true it may be that Longoria or Upton were better defensively at their positions than Bartlett was at his, neither was perceived as the glue of the defense. Bartlett was.

Now I know I am arguing perception, not necessarily reality. But in this case, I think it absolutely proper for local reporters/columnists to pin the award on the one man who is perceived as the key to the defense. It is not the selection that deserves mockery, scorn, sarcasm and venom, but the hyper critical attacks, the nasty rhetoric and mean-spirited, dogmatic and arrogant name calling I read at BTF and elsewhere that earn such scorn. And frankly, I think Posnanski’s simple-minded critique was unworthy also.

I think we all need to remember that the fundamental message of the Bill James revolution in baseball analysis was not to establish new dogmas or incontrovertible answers but rather to focus on questioning all orthodoxies and to look for better ways to consider them. It was the questions, not the answers, that were important, and an open mind to the many possibilities, not the focus on a particular line of inquiry. That applies here where the concept of team MVP is open to many legitimate interpretations, especially for local journalists.

Of course the notion that a team’s record with or without a particular player should determine MVP qualifications is a flawed approach. (Like Yankee fans claiming that O’Neill’s retirement ushered in a period when NY stopped winning, a statement that is both untrue and illogical. They actually stopped winning in the post-season when Brosius retired, by the way.) But as a shorthand for summing up his role in tightening up the defense it is passable, and in a article in a mainstream publication it is perfectly proper. Were A-Rod or Pujols on the team, Bartlett’s selection could be criticized as blinkered, but in the absence of such overwhelming excellence, it can be disputed, but not dismissed.

Oh yes, given the sophomoric vitriol to which Topkin and friends were subjected after first announcing their selection, I think the response is relatively courteous, and restrained.

by bobr on Nov 12, 2008 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So, the definition of MVP that leads to Bartlett as team MVP is:

Not a pitcher.
Contributed to sub-section of team that showed largest improvement over previous year.
Biggest contribution towards sub-section of team that showed largest improvement over previous year.
Value outside the sub-section of team that showed largest improvement over previous year is irrelevant.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 12, 2008 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Partially,

but I think the real point is that, even within the closed world of baseball analysis, it is not such a serious issue. The journalists wanted to make a statement about why the team won and selecting Bartlett put the stress where they wanted it. I really do not think it is the sort of decision that deserves minute analysis, and given the nature of the team and the play of its stars, even less worthy of serious controversy. Bartlett was a perfectly valid selection as a symbolic statement and as a reward for his contributions, both perceived and real. Giving it more weight is a slippery slope to later scholastic arguments about angels on pinheads.

Were I to give it more consideration, I would probably highlight the improvements in the defense and the bullpen as the critical changes, but might also note the addition of Longoria, the improvement at catcher, the strength of the bench, & the stabilization of the rotation. I imagine there are statistical ways to measure the relative significance of each factor, but aside from my guess that such measurements would be inconclusive, I certainly do not expect mainstream media to delve so deeply into them, nor should they.

If those are the critical factors, then Bartlett’s selection to highlight the defensive one is sensible as might be Navarro or Longoria or Garza or Sonnanstine or Howell or Balfour or even Aybar. And I am sure there are reasonable arguments for Pena, Iwamura, Upton and Shields. Perhaps there was a desire to spread the awards out somewhat, thus eliminating Longoria for example. I don’t know, but hardly think it worthwhile obsessing over it, and certainly object to the vituperative language on some sites, the self-serving trait of true believers who have discovered the ultimate truth and in their enthusiasm completely miss the point of it.

by bobr on Nov 12, 2008 8:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Listen, I like Barty

but the only conceivable reason why they thought he was team MVP was because of the way the team played without him, especially right before the ASB.

Still a dumbass reason, though

Sternberg/Friedman '08!!

by JMB on Nov 12, 2008 5:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bartlett's second half may have also had some play in the matter

He was third in OPS and was a key down the stretch as others were going down around him. These sorts of things resonate strongly with most baseball writers.

by rglass44 on Nov 12, 2008 11:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs