No love for Chipper, huh?

I think reading the comments to that article knocked 30 points off my IQ.

"Josh Hamilton gets most of the press in Arlington these days, but Kinsler has been the better player."

Kinsler leads the AL (by a lot) in Win Shares and VORP.

Eamus--oh God. I wish you hadn't pointed the comments section out. I'm glad to know that many people still believe those statistics are important. Now how do I convince the Cubs to hire all of them?

By the way, these would be the Win Shares All-Star starters:

SP - Lee AL; Volquez NL
RP - Rivera AL; Cordero NL
C - Mauer AL; Soto NL
1B - Morneau AL; Berkman NL
2B - Kinsler AL; Uggla NL
3B - Longoria AL; Jones NL
SS - Young AL; Ramirez NL
OF - Hamilton AL; McLouth NL
OF - Sizemore AL; Beltran NL
OF - Upton AL; Bay NL
DH - Bradley; Pujols NL

While these would be your VORP All-Star starters (where it differs is in bold):

SP - Lee AL; Sheets NL
RP - Rivera AL; Saito NL
C - Mauer AL; McCann NL
1B - Youkilis AL; Berkman NL
2B - Kinsler AL; Utley NL
3B - Longoria AL; Jones NL
SS - Young AL; Ramirez NL
OF - Hamilton AL; McLouth NL
OF - Sizemore AL; Holliday NL
OF - Drew AL; Burrell NL
DH - Bradley; Pujols NL

Should team wins truly mean nothing in the Most Valuable Player voting? If the best player played on a team that won 0 games, should he still win MVP? /hypathetical

IMO Value always comes down to wins and making the postseason... how many wins you help lead your team to, and what percentage of each win were you personally responsible for. Odds are, like is assumed in wins shares, good players will lead to wins similarly on good and bad teams, but that doesn't mean that we can't try to look at team performance as an aspect of MVP.

I think reading the comments to that article knocked 30 points off my IQ.

####### it, why do I read a comment like this, go read the article comments, and then be surprised that they're worse than I imagined?

If the best player played on a team that won 0 games, should he still win MVP? /hypathetical

Is the most expensive diamond in the world less valuable if its owner has no other money?

With all the half-point Cy Young and NL All-Star starter talk, I'm amazed at the lack of attention Dan Haren has received.

Haren is fourth in the NL by ERA, eighth in strikeouts, sixth in innings pitched, 1st in K/BB (by a mile, he has a 5.09 K/9 and Sheets is second with 3.86), 1st in WHIP (he and Cole Hamels are the only pitchers under one), 2nd in FIP (.02 behind Lincecum), and as of last night, second in ERA+ behind only Volquez.

In my opinion, the only way that you can put Sheets ahead of Haren is to place a "pitching in the NL West" penalty against him. Of course, Lincecum is Perry's runner up so clearly that's not a factor.

I must admit - I also read the comments section from the article and feel sick. Damn you Eamus!

I shudder to think what Toronto would be like without Roy Halladay. On and off the field, he is the team's MVP every year. The guy does mental concentration exercises at home to focus better during games. If he played for an American team, he would be adequately recognized.

Is the most expensive diamond in the world less valuable if its owner has no other money?

It's intrinsic value is the same but it's relative value is less.

The comments make the stock of faith in humanity plummet.

Your comment that wins for a pitcher should be completely ignored is hopelessly ignorant.

Just because you make a strong case for somebody being MVP doesn't make them the MVP.

First off: this article is like a blurb. How log did it take Mr. Perry to wrhis? Six minutes?!
I know Mr. Perry is busy writing books that no one will here about, but how about putting a little effort into it.
Next: Think out these articles. This guy just threw names up there (without going into any detail) and figured it was enough.
Finally: Mr. Perry is not Jason Stark (of ESPN), who does know his baseball. However, Mr. Perry should start reading his articles to learn how to craft a list. (which is equal to writing a picture book.)

I totally agree with Longoria for R of Y and for what Joe Maddon has done with the Rays up until seven games ago. But, the Rays are finished (and this is coming from a die hard Ray's fan...)

Perry... Your choices are much like your lower intestint...stinky!

It's intrinsic value is the same but it's relative value is less.

Relative to what?

It's intrinsic value is the same but it's relative value is less.

If the owner of the world's most expensive diamond had no other assets, wouldn't that make the relative value of the diamond more because of the rarity of assets? You know, a supply and demand kind of deal?

Ramirez over Berkman?!?! You aren't worthy of living....

That's the (current) entire first comment and pretty much sums up the discourse on the site.

I love how everybody downs Jeters glove I mean come on hes a career .975 fielder thats pretty good, Ozzies career % was .978, @ short Cal Ripken Jr. had a career % of .979 they all seem pretty good if ya ask me

I would like to report an inappropriate comment, I think.

And while we discuss Hamilton vs. Kinsler, why not toss in Milton "180 OPS+" Bradley in there?

I think reading the comments to that article knocked 30 points off my IQ.

To paraphrase the late great George Carlin, think how dumb the average American is. Then realize half the people are dumber than that.

And while we discuss Hamilton vs. Kinsler, why not toss in Milton "180 OPS+" Bradley in there?

Agree. It's hard to ignore a guy when he's leading the AL in both on-base and slugging.

Jeter is at least average defensively, one of the 3 greatest offesnive shortstops of all time (Ripken and Banks) and one of the greatest clutch players of all time....I'd take him on my team

You see whenever I think the quality of the comments on BBTF are slipping I can always scan other blogs...
What about Honus Wagner? ARod? Vaughn? Actually the reference to Jeter bing in the top 3 (careerwise) isn't too far off (albeit no decline phase yet), it's Ripken's and Bank's. (If you count Banks YOU HAVE to count AROD.

Hey !! What about David Murphy of the Rangers for AL Rookie of the Year ?? Having a SOLID season and a lot more offensive production than Longoria...

Even if BA-HR-RBI are your metrics of choice, .276-13-60 fro Murphy and .275-16-53 for Longoria, "a lot more" in favorable of Murphy is arguable. If you use ANY metric more advance than AVG-HR-RBI, Longoria is far far ahead... without even getting to fielding

And while we discuss Hamilton vs. Kinsler, why not toss in Milton "180 OPS+" Bradley in there?

Agree. It's hard to ignore a guy when he's leading the AL in both on-base and slugging.

Bradley has been impressive, but he's missed some time and spent some games at DH. He's been great, but not as valuable as Kinsler. That long term deal the Rangers signed Kinsler to is looking awfully good right about now...

Bradley has been impressive, but he's missed some time and spent some games at DH. He's been great, but not as valuable as Kinsler. That long term deal the Rangers signed Kinsler to is looking awfully good right about now...

Absolutely, I think Kinsler is the best choice of the three, but it does surprise me that Bradley doesn't even get a mention in an article from someone like Dayn Perry, even if all he said was exactly what you wrote.

I think we'll continue to see more and more deals like Kinsler's handed out to young players.

love those comments:

wow, didnt ur mom ever tell u crack kills? where have u been? chase u is the best player in baseball right now, let alone the nl

Sheets also ranks in the top five in innings and strikeout-to-walk ratio and leads the league in complete games. Oh, and he's doing it all while pitching his home games in a park that modestly benefits hitters.

(multi-year): Batting - 101, Pitching - 101
(one-year): Batting - 102, Pitching - 102

I guess Miller park helps hitters a little bit compared to a number of other parks. But for me...even though 100 is "officially neutral", I generally tend to look at parks between 98-102 as all more or less neutral. Are park factors THAT accurate that we can really make a case there is much difference between 99-101? Is Sheets really overcoming some burden by pitching in a hitters park? Don't get me wrong, Sheets is a fine choice, but to me it just seems a little bit of overkill to bring up the park factor here. Miller park doesn't even rate as much of a hitters park as Dodger stadium. ;)

Sheets is the king of first half performance. Talk to me in late August.

Sheets is the king of first half performance. Talk to me in late August.

I'm the type of annoying guy who looks up things like that- but I should never doubt your powers of observation.

Sheets first half: 56-43 3.50
second half: 27-34 4.12

I should have known- I once traded for Sheets midseason in my roto league- yes I was disappointed...

Kinsler's glove really does hurt him. My vote would actually go to Grady Sizemore right now, although differences of a few runs are tough to base anything on. All have been fantastic. If only Texas had a pitcher or two.

Player, BtRuns (B-Ref), PosAdj (through 60% of season), Field (estimated), *total*
Sizemore, 20, 3, 5, *28*
Bradley, 34, -7, 0, *27* (but hurt by playing time when converting to replacement level)
Kinsler, 30, 0, -5, *25*
Hamilton, 24, 1, 0, *25*

VORP underrates center fielders relative to other positions, by the way.

Why do Sizemore and Hamilton get a positional adjustment over Kinsler? 2B is still a more premium position than CF, right?

VORP underrates center fielders relative to other positions, by the way.

it does?

BPRO has Sizemore with 69.9 EQR in 267 outs

Markakis has 63.9 in 252 outs, yet Sizemore's VORP is 42.5 and Markakis is 29.9

seems to me that Sizemore is being given a decent size positional adjustment for being a CF rather than an RF

JPWF13, that's interesting. I made my claim based on the fact that VORP's replacement level is a set percentage (I think 80% except catcher and DH) of positional average offensive performance. That means the overall value from every position is the same. But center fielders are better overall players -- they tend to be better than average on defense AND on offense. Judging them relative to their own (good) offensive output isn't fair.

A better way to handle positional adjustments is to measure defensive ability. From Tango, when corner outfielders switch to center field and vice versa, they rate about ten runs worse. When you do the same thing across all positions, you get 2B and 3B right in the middle of the spectrum, SS and CF with 5 run bonuses, LF and RF with 5 run penalties, 1B with a ten run penalty, and catcher with a ten run bonus. All approximate.

So, over a full season, Sizmore should get a ten run bump compared to Markakis due to position. Which VORP has done. Guess I'm wrong, although I don't understand it. Does VORP treat RF and LF the same?

Why do Sizemore and Hamilton get a positional adjustment over Kinsler? 2B is still a more premium position than CF, right?

I have CF 2.5 runs per 1350 innings over 2B. From what I gather, Tango and AROM adjust similarly.

Sheets first half: 56-43 3.50
second half: 27-34 4.12

The most important thing to note there is that Sheets only has 60 percent as many decisions in the second half.

But center fielders are better overall players -- they tend to be better than average on defense AND on offense.

no..., CFs tend to be worse on offense (on average) than RFs and LFs, and have been for many many years.

The most important thing to note there is that Sheets only has 60 percent as many decisions in the second half.

I know what you mean, Sheets has been breaking down in recent years, but "half" is decided by the all star break which tends to occur 10 or more games after the actual midpoint

34 -- I meant that CFs tend to be better than the average of ALL positions in both offense and defense. Actually, I'm not sure if they're better than average on offense -- but when you combine the two, the value provided by center fielders is more than at other positions.