What does MVP mean?

We have been in the middle of a great MVP debate in the NBA for months now, and everyone has an opinion. Your choice for the award depends on how you define MVP, though.

I admit, this is something I have a hard time with because my definition changes. I can't decide which is the best definition, which I suppose is what makes MVP such a lively debate.

Some simply define the MVP as the best player on the best team.

Some look for the most dominant player.

Some say the MVP is the best player in the league based on stats.

Some say the MVP is the player whose team has the worst record without him.

Some penalize a player for being on a bad team.

Some penalize a player for being on a good team.

Some people think 'valuable' is a general term.

Others think it means 'valuable' specifically to a player's team.

Some say you just know it when you see it.

Bill Simmons, always doing things his own way, has three questions that he asks:

1. Ten years from now, who will be the first player from this season that pops into my head?
2. In a giant pickup game with every NBA player waiting to play and two fans forced to pick sides with their lives depending on the outcome of the game, who would be the first player picked based on the way everyone played that season?
3. If you replaced every MVP candidate with a decent player at his position for the entire season, what would be the effect on their teams' records?

Again, I'm not here to debate who the MVP is, but rather how we define the term. And I'm not looking for consensus, either. I just want to hear the reasoning behind your MVP definition.

Don't forget the other sports as well. Just because NBA MVP talk is dominating at the moment, don't limit yourself to that. Does your MVP definition change for different sports—for example, the Heisman Trophy in college football?

What does MVP mean to you?

Also published at 110 Percent.

Anonymous Fanatic #1

543 days ago

Score 0

MVP in my mind should be a player who has the big games every night. but not only pionts also rebounds blocks and mostimportant i think assist. MVP should be team players no self centered like kobe bryant.

Permalink | Reply

KelsdadAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 2

It has a double meaning. Most valuable to his team, in comparison to the best players on the other teams. A team which finishes below .500 or close to it or misses the playoffs shouldn't have an MVP. Like the old saying, we were bad with you and we would have been bad without you. Which is why Kobe should not be considered for MVP. Most voters do consider the "best stats, best player" theory when voting and none of us can do anything about it, just the way it is. The Phillies missed the postseason last season, yet had the MVP? Sorry, shouldn't happen.

Permalink | Reply

Taytay 24All-American

543 days ago

Score 0

I thought the same thing about A-Rod with the Rangers in 2003, even though Texas is my team. But I do think you can get away with this easier in baseball than the others.

Permalink

Bball3345Draft Pick

543 days ago

Score 2

I wrote an article on the same thing last baseball season

Permalink | Reply

KelsdadAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 1

I read for the first time right now BBall, and, you are correct in theory but incorrect in translation. Not one single MVP voter, or Cy Young voter, whatever, considers "win shares" or any other useless stat as a voting tool. Baseball people know Pujol's value to the Cardinals without a calculator, but it's not enough, at least not last year. The Cardinals sucked. They got extremely lucky and no one particular player had less or more to do with what transpired. But at the same time, Pujols would have gotten my vote over Ryan Howard.

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 0

Okay, don't use calculators: I challenge you to tell the difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter by using your eyes only -- no counting, no stats whatsoever, just watching. Which one had the better batting average? You know what, you couldn't tell me, because that's a difference of one hit every two weeks. We need those "useless stats" for that precise reason -- the eyes of "baseball people" can be deceived just as well as anybody else's. Seriously, if you watched every at-bat last year by Pujols and, say, Lance Berkman, would you be able to say, without keeping any stats, who had the better year? Or even who the better hitter was?

Permalink

KelsdadAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 1

Let me ask you a question or two, D21.

First, do you know where the term "sabermetrics" originated? Not that this is pertinant to the conversation, I'm just curious.

Do you think scouts and player development people use these "calculator" stats? The answer is no, they don't. Of course I can tell the better hitter with my eyes. (Pujols). Why? Because I know the game. I know mechanics and techniques and pitch patterns and on and on and on. I can sit and watch a game with you (with the volume off) and tell you what pitches will be thrown and where, and be right most of the time. I can tell by the motions a catcher makes whether or not there will be a pickoff play, or whether the pitch will be high or low. Can you?

David Ortiz was released three times, makes a little adjustment, and all of a sudden has been arguably the best hitter in baseball the last five seasons. A calculator didn't give him the tip, a baseball person did. Sorry, man. I love stats as much as anyone, but the only people that use them (and understand them) are stat heads. "Baseball people" don't.

Permalink | Reply

False ProphetAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 2

those so called calculator stats make a big deal. Which would you want, a Player with a .290 Batting Average, or a .305 Hitter. The .305 hitter. That's not even a hit a week. No way you can tell that from watching. What about a 40 HR hitter vs. a 45 HR hitter? Wouldn't know the difference without "calculator stats". Calculator stats are the answers for things that you wouldn't be able to keep track of without them, like VORP. VORP, in my mind is the key stat along with The point diff on/off court or in/out starting lineup. Those things show you in an unbiased way, who is more valuable in comparison to a replacement player, and how manny points they mean to their team.

When you go to a game, keep score, and then look at the stats, then think about what you saw. Chances are they support what you saw.

Also, stats like Pyth Wins is incredibly accurate. I looked at their site, and they simulated NHL history with their formula. The Results? The league had a .50000008(or something to that nature). win pct. Are you that accurate? No, no one is, and everyone has biases. Stats eliminate Bias in most cases.

Permalink

Davis21wylieAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 1

Okay, one thing at a time. :)

"Sabermetrics" comes from SABR, which is the Society for American Baseball Research, a group devoted to, well, research on the history of the game. Stats are actually a small portion of what they do, so it's a bit of a misnomer, but there you have it.

As for the second point, remember, I played in high school. I was not a star by any means, but I still know a thing or two about the non-stats side of the game. And knowledgeable fans such as ourselves can identify that Pujols is a better hitter than Berkman (lefty version, not righty, that'd be too easy) by watching them swing (Pujols has better balance and a more compact stroke, to name two things). But can you say who put up the better numbers merely by watching (and not counting)? The good money's on Pujols, but that'd just be an educated guess based on your knowledge that he's got a better swing. You could never know for sure without keeping stats. And what about guys with great swings who never produce? Guys with bad swings who do produce? The take-home point is this: good numbers are the end result of a long process, but you still must have them to be considered a successful player. Stats translate skills to wins. Allegedly good skills without good stats are worthless.

Permalink

Davis21wylieAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 1

And what are "calculator stats", anyway? Is batting average a calculator stat? I'm 100% fine with "baseball people" when they describe things in physical terms -- throwing motions, swing mechanics, etc... things that the stats don't pick up on. But what kills me is when "baseball people" criticize so-called "statheads," and then turn around and use (inferior) stats like RBI and batting average to support a point. If you're going to use stats, at least use relevant ones. And, basically, the only relevant stats are on-base percentage and slugging percentage. Those two stats, by themselves, explain 93% of run scoring. Add in stolen bases, and it's something like 97%. So, baseball people, if you're going to talk stats, don't use batting average or RBI. Either use the good stats, or stick to the (very useful) scouting descriptions of players.

Permalink

KelsdadAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 0

Just because a player has a higher batting average doesn't make him a better hitter. Look at Ichiro, who gets around 30 bunt hits a season. Take those away and what is his average? Last season, Raul Ibanez was responsible for 21.2% of Seattle's runs last season and Ichiro was at 18.7%, Ichiro's average was .322 and Ibanez .289. Who is the better hitter? Its not quantity, its quality. Less is more, whatever.

Go to a minor league game or instructional league and sit behind the plate with all the scouts and player development people with their radar guns and laptops and ask them what VORP is and I doubt no one could tell you. That, to me, tells me how important it is.

If you are a paid journalist or statistician then it is a very important part of your job, I understand that. But Bill James and all these numbers guys wrote books for one reason...to make money. They could honestly care less whether or not someone takes them or their stats seriously as long as they are cashing royalty checks.

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 0

See my post above. I don't particularly care whether or not they know what VORP is, but they'd damn well better know that OBP and SLG are essentially the only stats that matter on offense.

Permalink

KelsdadAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 1

Very good, Davis. I've been a member of SABR for 18 years, and I take very seriously our responsibilities to the game. I've spent most of the last six months proofing Chicago White Sox boxscores...from 1911. Ever see a 1911 boxscore? And you're right, stats are a very small part. And most of these stat heads ARE NOT SABR members, FYI. I'm not saying stats aren't important, of course they are. But it seems to me ever since the fantasy explosion each website or fantasy mag has to out do the other one's and invent something new, MOST of which are totally useless.

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 0

I could do without the alphabet soup (VORP, etc.) myself, because it sets the statheads up in a position to be ridiculed by the "baseball people," people who could actually learn from what statheads have to say. If I could pick two and only two offensive stats for MLB to track from now until the end of time, they'd be OBP and SLG. I could go the rest of my life and never see VORP, win shares, etc., because they're all derived from those other two simple numbers. In all the confusion/turf wars over these other stats, I think people have forgotten that (or, worse yet, they never knew to begin with).

Permalink

KelsdadAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 1

OBP is important is important to Ichiro, SLG is not. Slugging is important to Richie Sexson, OBP is not. Scouts care about CONTACT. If a guy goes to the plate and hits four ropes and is 0-4, that could be considered a good day. I've seen a hundred college or high school players go 4-4, yet they were terrible hitters, they got lucky because of the aluminum bats. (a measureable intangible, by the way). A scout doesnt sit behind the plate wondering what some guy's slugging percentage is going to be in five years. He's wondering if he'll make enough contact to have one.

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 0

Well, think about which skills comprise OBP + SLG... The ability to make solid contact when you swing, and patience/strike zone recognition. That's it. The beauty of OBP + SLG (which isn't the same thing as OPS, by the way) is that you can take skills and the stats that represent those skills -- contact rate, walk rate, "batting eye" (BB/K), BABIP (the lucky 4-4 hitters are an example of why BABIP is so important), etc. -- and put an actual value number on those skills in terms of OBP/SLG. In effect, if you can project skills, you can project the numbers that directly relate to those skills, and from there you can assess value to an offense.

Permalink

KelsdadAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 0

Is Ryan Howard a good hitter, or a lucky (fortunate) one?

Permalink | Reply

Davis21wylieAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 0

Last year, Howard enjoyed a slightly lucky BABIP, and he relied on power over contact hitting (always a relatively risky skillset). This year, people aren't pitching to him, as a result he's chasing anything close, he's K-ing like crazy, and he's not hitting for power when he does make contact. But things even out over a full season. Was he lucky to hit 58 HR last year? Yep. But, barring injury, he'll have 45+ this year, in spite of the slow start. And that's statistical analysis in a nutshell!

Permalink

KelsdadAll-Star

543 days ago

Score 0

BABIP, the worst!! Probably invented by some agent trying to convince some GM that his .235 client is a good player. After all, isn't it the job of every hitter to put the ball in play?

You can project skills, you cannot project numbers, at least not accurately.

OBP + SLG, very good. Better as a group than either of them by themselves.

Pitchers have figured him out. He is now officially overmatched, and not only will he not hit 45, he'll be lucky to hit 35. And he may threaten Adam Dunn's K record. His 2005 season will go down in history as one of the all time fluke years.

Permalink | Reply

Bball3345Draft Pick

542 days ago

Score 1

Do you understand what BABIP even measures? If a player is hitting the ball in play every time up to the plate, yet he is only hitting .100. Then he is probably running through bad luck. If, on the other hand, he is putting the ball in play and hitting .450, then he's probably getting very lucky and the ball is finding holes that it won't over the course of a career. BABIP is a great way of determining who is getting lucky and who isn't.

Permalink

Bball3345Draft Pick

542 days ago

Score 1

KD, the more and more you argue your point, the more it seems to me like you are agreeing with the usefulness of stats. I just don't think you realize it. If you just took a step back and looked at what you are saying and what the stats are measuring, you would realize how closely they are aligned. "Baseball people" and "statheads" have no reason to be opposing forces. They both offer their own intelligence and insight to the game. Both of them can learn a lot from each other. In my opinion, the "statheads" seem much more willing to do so.

Permalink

KelsdadAll-Star

543 days ago

Score -2

And Voros McCracken is an idiot.

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #2

542 days ago

Score 0

I agree stats are important, but some of them, make that most of them, are useless. BABIP, VORP, Pecota, are a waste of time, they were created for one purpose, to sell someones book.

BBall, what you refer to BABIP I refer to common sense. When I look at a stat sheet and see Michael Young is hitting .217, I automatically know that's bad luck. When I read where Ichiro had three games last week in which he struck out three times, I automatically know that is a result of mechanics. When I see Ryan Howard hit .313, yet struck out 181 times, I know his average to be the result of luck. I don't need some created stat to tell me.

I agree we can learn from each other, so do me a favor, next time you watch a game, do so without the volume. And keep score. Chart pitches. There is a huge difference between watching a game just because the TV is on, and actually "watching". The goal should be for me to ask you a question and have you answer without turning your computer on.

Permalink | Reply

KelsdadAll-Star

542 days ago

Score 1

these logouts are really starting to bug me.

Permalink | Reply

False ProphetAll-Star

542 days ago

Score 0

see this site for an explanation of the value of VORP. I don't even need to put together arguments for it. THere's an entire blog for it. What about Pythagorean Formula or DVOA? Are those worthless too? Especially Pyth. I can't find the link, but someone simulated NHL history with it, and it came out with such a low error rate that it's about as accurate as it can be with human error and wierd things that change it.

Permalink

KelsdadAll-Star

542 days ago

Score 0

My point FP is I don't need a mathematical formula to tell me David Ortiz is more valuable than Travis Lee. So, that to me, is why I think these stats, including VORP, are worthless. I like Pyth as a projection tool, it clearly shows whether a team over or under achieved. But it only works after the fact, you can't use it now to determine how may games a team will win this season.

Permalink | Reply

False ProphetAll-Star

542 days ago

Score 0

but in a close MVP race like this year's NBA one, VORP and other stats can help eliminate biases in peopl's thoughts. PYTH can be used to show trends of a team as far as their projected W-L record. Mutliply their Pyth pct. by the number of games in the teams season, and you have their expect win total should they continue at the rate they are going. It doesn't work very well to start the season, but as soon as a few games pass, it becomes more and more accurate.

Permalink

False ProphetAll-Star

542 days ago

Score 1

Also, I'll prove to you the value of stats. Without using ANY stats, or ANY bias, tell me who the best Hitter is in baseball history. You can't do it, because stats encompass more than you realize

Permalink | Reply

KelsdadAll-Star

542 days ago

Score 0

Again, I never said stats weren't valuable, or important. What I did say was some of these newer stats, like BABIP, like VORP, have no value to anyone except the people who invented them. When baseball adopts them as official stats then they will have credibility. When a GM has a press conference and says, "when we got his VORP numbers back we decided to complete the trade for Mr. X", then it will have credibility. Until that happens, which will likely be never, they are just numbers on paper that no one uses. And the voters for this years MVP won't use VORP in their determination in who to vote for, at least they better not. If you need to use a formula to determine who you thought was MVP then you probably shouldn't have a vote in the first place.

Permalink | Reply

False ProphetAll-Star

542 days ago

Score 0

some teams do use VORP, I know at least the BoSoxs do.

Permalink

KelsdadAll-Star

542 days ago

Score 0

What is DVOA? Your link above took me to a blank page.

Permalink | Reply

False ProphetAll-Star

542 days ago

Score 0

DVOA. Essentially, it was Aaron Schatz's way of disproving the statement by boston globe writer Ron Borges who thought the Pats only failed to make the playoffs in 2002 because they couldn't establish the run. It's a statistical ranking system, based off of a variety of stats that are unknown, but it turns out pretty damn accurate. FO also has a weighted one which I personally love. It's a football only stat compling ranking. It's truely amazing

Permalink

KelsdadAll-Star

542 days ago

Score 0

Thanks. Interesting site, FO. I'll take a better look later when time isn't an issue.

Permalink | Reply

False ProphetAll-Star

542 days ago

Score 0

I use it for my what if the NFL used the BCS? column. I like the weighted rankings, but sometimes have problems with it due to my biases

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #3

378 days ago

Score 0

mvp=pro

Permalink | Reply