Revisiting 2013 MLB Most Valuable Player Award Predictions

A few weeks ago, I attempted to predict how the BBWAA would vote for this season's American and National League MVP awards. The results came out earlier this week, so let's take a look at how I did.

Here are the results, followed by my prediction:

2013 AL MVP Top-5 (Actual)
Miguel Cabrera
Mike Trout
Chris Davis
Josh Donaldson
Robinson Cano

Me:
Miguel Cabrera
Mike Trout
Chris Davis
Josh Donaldson
Max Scherzer

As you can see, I did a fairly good job with the American League. My top 4 was spot on. However, clearly I overestimated what the writers would think of Max Scherzer's season. As I mentioned, I thought this was a fairly straightforward call, and so I'm happy I came close.

I personally, am not a fan of pitchers being included in the MVP race for a number of reasons. Most importantly, they have their own award already. Secondly, the way that the writers have incorporated pitchers into the MVP race is very inconsistent.

These are far from my biggest complaints with the BBWAA and how they vote on awards and the Hall of Fame. However, filing a lodge of complaints against the BBWAA could easily take up many pages, so I will move on.

2013 NL MVP Top-5 (actual)
Andrew McCutchen
Paul Goldschmidt
Yadier Molina
Matt Carpenter
Freddie Freeman

Me:
Clayton Kershaw
Andrew McCutchen
Paul Goldschmidt
Yadier Molina
Matt Carpenter

So, I botched this one by predicting that the writers would give it to Kershaw. But, my system did nail the order of the everyday players. So, I clearly overestimated the value that the writers were putting in the top pitchers in each league. To be honest, I think the NL outcome is kind of bizarre. I have no problem with McCutchen winning, as he had a fantastic season. And as I mentioned before, I don't believe pitchers should be considered for MVP. But that I'm still scratching my head over Kershaw finishing 7th in the voting.

Two years ago, the writers awarded Verlander the AL MVP by a wide margin, after a dominant season in which he ran away with the Cy Young. Kershaw won the Cy a few days ago, receiving 29 of the 30 first place votes. So, obviously the BBWAA recognized his outstanding season. His 1.83 ERA was the lowest by a major leaguer since 1985 (Doc Gooden). I could go more deeply into the numbers, but it doesn't really matter. Verlander easily winning the 2011 AL MVP, and Kershaw not even sniffing the top-5 in voting in 2013 doesn't add up.

Perhaps this is a sign that the writers are moving away from giving the MVP to pitchers. Anyhow, this was a fun exercise, and while I don't believe my system was anything special, the framework did a fairly good job with this season.

Calling the 2013 MLB Most Valuable Player Award Races (Part 2- Predictions)

This is Part II in a two part series, predicting the Major League Baseball's Most Valuable Player Awards.  Check out the author's process by reading Part I.

Using the process outlined in Part I, I've come up with my own predictions for how the Baseball Writer's Association of America will vote for this season's American and National League Most Valuable Player Awards.

I began with a long list that included essentially any player who finished near the top of the leader board in WAR, traditional power stats, on-base plus slugging, or average. After plugging the numbers into the system, it was easy to eliminate a good portion of the list. In fact, I was very pleased with who the template told me were the top dogs. This is because I think that most people have a fairly good idea about what will happen with the AL race. The NL will be a tougher call and so this was a good test for the point system. Here were the top 4 finishers in the AL:

Player	WAR	R	RBI	HR	SB	AVG	Playoff	Exc/Exp	Def	Total
Cabrera	6	1	3	3		5	5			23
Donaldson	8	o	o			o	5	2.5	5	20.5
Trout	10	1.25	o	o	o	3			5	19.25
Davis	2	0.75	3.75	3.75				2.5		12.75

I'm on board with these guys finishing in the top 4. However, I think I need to take a few other factors into account and reassess the order after Cabrera. Now, of importance are the categories marked "o". "o" is to show that a player finished near the top five in the category, but was not awarded points as he was just outside. My own discretionary points could definitely be a bit generous to Donaldson, and I believe that the fact that Trout finished highly, but not within the top five, of RBI, HR, and SB warrants him being moved ahead of Donaldson in the voting. I think Trout is recognized as the best all around player in baseball and will finish second to Cabrera again this year.

Picking between Davis and Donaldson for 3rd is tougher. If I were to remove Donaldson's Exc/Exp points (extra points I awarded for bursting on the scene and having a "clutch" narrative surrounding him) and give Davis a boost of say 5, for leading in RBIs and HRs, plus blasting through the 50 hr threshold, his and Donaldson's point totals would fall much closer. Last year's results are interesting to consider: In 2012, Josh Hamilton, with excellent power numbers and high strikeout totals akin to Davis in 2013, finished 5th in the voting behind the solid-across-the-board seasons of Robinson Cano and Adrian Beltre.

Cano and Beltre are not bad comparisons for Donaldson this year. However, Donaldson's power numbers are slightly below where Cano and Beltre were last year. Also, Davis crushed the competition with 53 home runs this season- 10 more than Hamilton hit last year when he finished second in the category. But, Davis' high strikeout totals and the fact that his Orioles missed the playoffs will be negatives to the voters. In the end, I think the small market in Oakland hurts Donaldson's chances. Also, I think he might be just a bit too far below the 30 home run and 100 RBI thresholds in the voters' eyes. I'm going to give Davis the nod.

Finally, I need to round out my top five. For fifth, I'm going to check out the numbers of Max Scherzer, who most expect to win the AL Cy Young in 2013. Scherzer, after leading the league in Wins, base runners per inning pitched, and finishing in the top five of most other categories, grades out well with my system. While I think my system is flawed in the way it incorporates pitchers, Scherzer's points put him far enough ahead of the remaining candidates that I'm going to trust the numbers. Plus, given the love that Detroit players and pitchers have gotten in the MVP voting in recent years, I like his chances of finishing in the top 5. Bias for and against certain cities seems to be a real thing. Verlander won the award in 2011, and finished 8th in 2012. I think Scherzer's season fits in somewhere between those two.

AL MVP Prediction: Miguel Cabrera

2nd-5th (respectively): Mike Trout, Chris Davis, Josh Donaldson, Max Scherzer

Onto the NL. This, as I mentioned, seems to be a much closer race. I followed the same approach as with the AL race, including the pitcher assessment. In the end I was left with this result:

Player	WAR	R	RBI	HR	SB	AVG	Playoff	Ex	Def	Total
Kershaw	10	0.75	3	3.75	1.25	5	5			28.75
McCutchen	10	o	o		0.25	o	2.5		5	17.75
Goldschmidt	4	0.75	3.75	3.75		o		5		17.25
Molina	o					2	5	5	5	17
Carpenter	6	1.25				o	5		2.5	14.75
		W	IP	K	WHIP	ERA

Very interesting. You'll notice that the pitching categories show up on the bottom. They are weighted identically to their offensive counterpart. At this point I've morphed the 'Ex' category into an "appropriate intangible bonuses" column. For leading the NL in HRs and RBIs, plus the fact that he is perceived as an above average runner, I awarded Paul Goldschmidt the same bonus that I gave Davis in the AL. Yadier Molina gets a large bonus for the publicity that he receives as the best defensive catcher in baseball.

Despite the fact that I don't think the pitching stats fit into the system entirely accurately, I do like the results. Clayton Kershaw's dominance in nearly every pitching category of MVP-voting-value this season is not far off of Verlander's 2011 campaign. His final points are probably a bit bloated, but the idea of the system is to merely offer a framework from which to work of off. I like McCutchen to finish as the highest non-pitcher (or to win the award outright). He had an excellent season across the board, led the Pittsburgh renaissance, and plays a premium defensive position. Goldschmidt is hurt by the fact that his team missed the playoffs, but his offensive numbers are superb. I think he beats out Yadi.

Molina's numbers are comparable, but slightly below last season, when he finished 4th in the voting. As far as the two Cardinals go, I would be very surprised if Molina was deemed less valuable than any of his teammates. Hence, he beats out Carpenter. Carlos Gomez had an excellent year in Milwaukee and just missed the top 5 in my system. He could easily grab a number of MVP points and sneak into the top five, or better. But, for my prediction, I'm going to stick with these results. Kershaw is a risky choice for MVP, but I like his chances.   

NL MVP Prediction: Clayton Kershaw

2nd-5th (Respectively): Andrew McCutchen, Paul Goldschmidt, Yadier Molina, Matt Carpenter

I'll revisit my predictions in a few weeks. Now it's in the hands of the BBWAA.

This is Part II in a two part series, predicting the Major League Baseball's Most Valuable Player Awards.  Check out the author's process by reading Part I.

ILRSBS Goes to Phoenix: Part III

The team taking in the beautiful Phoenix skyline.

This is Part Two of a three-part series following the ILRSBS Case Competition team's trip to the SABR Analytics Conference in Phoenix, Arizona. (Click here to read Part One, and click here to read Part Two.)

When all was said and done, Hudson, Mike, and I were happy with our research and preparation. As we went to sleep at 3am, Phoenix time the night morning before presenting, we knew we had put all the effort possible into the case. Using an already overused sports analogy, we left it all out on the field.

Our team was scheduled to compete first that morning, at 9:30 sharp. In front of three judges from teams such as the Texas Rangers and Cleveland Indians, we were ready to make our pitch as part of a 20-minute presentation and 10-minute Q & A. Perhaps the most eye-opening part of the trip was just being able to stand in front of a room of extremely intelligent people and watch them as they listened to what we had to say. They truly did care, and the passion they have for the game was on full display. Often times we have these “epiphany” moments in our lives when we say, “How sweet was that?” I know I can speak for the three of us that one day, looking back; this certainly may be one of those moments.

Our team wound up finishing as the runner-ups in the Undergraduate division, as the eventual champions from NYU took first place. In the graduate/law division, Pepperdine University took top billing. For a three-man team, we were extremely proud of our accomplishment, and while we would’ve loved to win, the experience and learning we were able to participate in was recognition enough.

In addition to the Diamond Dollars Competition, the three of us were fortunate enough to interact up close and personal with some of the leading minds in the entire industry. Through various panels, and networking sessions, Hudson, Mike and I were able to meet top executives in Jed Hoyer, Rick Hahn, and Jerry DiPoto. Brian Kenny of MLB Network was one of the panel moderators, and throughout the conference we were able to connect and speak with various professionals from companies such as Fangraphs, Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus and other Major League clubs such as the Colorado Rockies, Texas Rangers, Cleveland Indians, and more.

Executives Daniels, Hoyer, and Hahn.

Perhaps the highlight of our week, however was getting to meet a fellow Cornellian that each of us one day hope to aspire to. Speaking with Rangers General Manager Jon Daniels was surreal. His advice was not only invaluable and thoughtful. Our two takeaways from him for were to watch as much baseball as possible, and to stay humble. As he put it, the game isn’t big on “self-promoters.”

The three of us with fellow Cornellian, Jon Daniels.

When all was said and done, the three of us had an amazing time. After a quick red-eye flight home, accompanied with a daylight-savings-time-change, we found ourselves back in reality of Cornell life.

As the inaugural Cornell case competition team members, a certain sense of pride exists in what we were able to accomplish. We look forward eagerly to next year when we send a few more students and continue to prove that the Ivy League knows its baseball.

Here are quick takes of our trips from my team members:

“It was a tremendous opportunity to be able to go to the SABR Conference and present our case in front of a group of highly regarded individuals within the baseball community. The conference itself was much more intimate and laid-back than others I had been to which allowed me the opportunity to speak with several Major League GMs, MLB Network Analyst Brian Kenny, members of the baseball analytics community, and a host of executives within Major League baseball. The only drawback to the conference, or more plainly the city of Phoenix in general, was the dearth of carne asada steak” –Mike Parnell

Outside the beautiful Chase Field in Phoenix.

“Participating in the SABR Case Competition was a great experience. The opportunity to spend a few days working on such a fascinating case was awesome, and getting to present our work to MLB industry leaders was truly amazing. The conference brought together hundreds of forward-thinking baseball brains, and so many people brought great ideas to the discussion. Being a part of that conference was so much fun, and although we didn't win the competition, I can’t wait to go back next year.” –Hudson Belinsky 

Oh, and we also got to take in a few WBC games!

We hope you all enjoyed this look into our trip to Phoenix. We look forward to making this event a key part of the organization moving forward. For any questions, comments, or suggestions, please email me at gmc74@cornell.edu.

ILRSBS Goes to Phoenix: Part II

This is Part Two of a three-part series following the ILRSBS Case Competition team's trip to the SABR Analytics Conference in Phoenix, Arizona. (Click here to read Part One.)

As mentioned previously, in projecting Mike Trout, we had an amazing talent on our hands. Looking at his WAR totals gave us a Hall of Fame type player, someone who would continue to produce at an MVP level into his early 30s. It became pretty clear to us that there would be no team with the resources available to trade for this type of player, so we turned our focus to figuring out what type of contract offer we could confidently extend to Trout.

$440,000,000 was the value of Trout’s production value to the Angels, yet, this number failed to account for risk. In any long-term agreement, each side takes on inherent risk. There are many circumstances in which the deal could turn out poorly. Injury, and lack of performance are the two main factors, yet in this case we also needed to account for the value of making life-changing money. Essentially it all boiled down to the guarantee of big money in the face of various risk factors.


After trying a couple different strategies, our team decided on generating a regression equation to determine a “discount rate” to Trout’s production value. We compared recent (since 2000) contract extensions, and examined the service time that each player had accumulated at the time of signing. After looking at the player’s production value ($4.5 million x WAR total = Expected Production) we plotted a regression against the service time at the time of extension. Our belief was that the more service time, or the more “established” a player was, the closer the player’s actual contract would be to his expected production value.

The extension data that helped us create our Regression.

Using the regression data we came up with the following equation: Discount Rate = -0.14511x + 2.000839. Plugging in the service time, we were able to establish a fair contract offer for Trout. Our offer to Trout would be eight years for $140 million, yet we would be willing to accept an offer up to $204 million over that time. With an agreement in this range, the Angels would lock-up an (projected) MVP-caliber player into his age 32 season. They would secure a face of the franchise, and they would not have to break the bank or mortgage their future success or payroll flexibility. From Trout’s perspective, he would get life-changing money, his first big contract that would now be guaranteed, even in the face of injury or lack of performance. 



Like the old game, Deal or No Deal, the more risk present, the more of a discount applied. By examining recent extension data, we confirmed our intuitive belief that this was the case. While players may be leaving some money on the table by taking extensions early on in their careers, they do so in order to receive security and peace of mind. In the end, the “Trout dilemma” boiled down to this issue of tradeoffs.


Angel's owner Arte Moreno will ultimately hold the
final decision on what to do with Mike Trout.

As a final piece to our presentation, we analyzed how the Angels could reasonably fit Trout’s contract into their current salary structure and obligations. By doing this, we also found that the distribution of money to Trout could vary year-to-year. In doing this, the Angels would maintain competitiveness (as a projected 90-win team) and still be able to retain their star at a fair price.

Check back tomorrow to hear how our team did and to hear about some of the other experiences from our weekend in Phoenix.

ILRSBS Goes to Phoenix: Part I

Hello, Phoenix. Hello, SABR.

This is Part One of a three-part series following the ILRSBS Case Competition team's trip to the SABR Analytics Conference in Phoenix, Arizona.

Just two weeks ago, three members of ILRSBS were able to take part in a unique opportunity. The 2^nd annual Diamond Dollars Case Competition in Phoenix, Arizona provided a platform for Mike Parnell, Hudson Belinsky, and myself to showcase just what Cornell and the Sports Business Society is all about.

Held as part of the SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) Analytics Conference, our case tasked us with developing, answering, and presenting our recommendations for a real-life baseball operations question. Last year, the case dealt with a “buy or sell” type question surrounding the Washington Nationals. This year, the focus was all on one of baseball’s most intriguing players: Mike Trout.

Yes, baseball’s most popular, mystifying and perhaps soon-to-be loved player was the focus of our entire case. You can imagine the excitement that came over our three-man team upon learning that we would be tasked with developing an appropriate contract extension for Mr. Trout. How fitting it was that days earlier, the real life Angels decided to renew the reigning AL MVPsuperstar at just $20,000 above the league minimum. As you can imagine, our first recommendation was simply, don’t do that!

Mike, Hudson, and Gabe working on the plane.

But in all seriousness, after receiving our case on Sunday morning, Mike, Hudson and I had four days to put together a cohesive 20-minute presentation on which to be judged. In the case, which was actually set following the 2013 season, Mike Trout went off for a 8.4 WAR season in which the Angels fell to the world champion Nationals in six games. In this scenario, the Angels would have one more season of Trout under cost-control as well as three years of control in which he would be arbitration eligible. Trout would become a free agent in 2017.

Placed in a position to advise Jerry Dipoto, the Angels GM, our team had to develop a contract proposal. Our three options were to trade Trout, to extend him over the short-term, or to provide him with a long-term extension. Playing into this decision would be our expected production of Trout, the value in dollars that he would be worth, the construction of the team around him, and the risk involved in such a contract. With the facts established, we set out to develop the best decision possible.

Through the next 4 days, we slogged through the massive amounts of data and processes needed to make our case to Mr. Dipoto. I’ll spare you the details, and just hit on two of the major highlights in our process.

The first is the manner in which we decided to project Mike Trout’s production for the next ten seasons (through age 32). As a team, we developed models for players similar to Trout in the three facets of the game, hitting, base running, and defense. Our samples were different for each of these categories, but they included players that met specific criteria for a player of Trout’s caliber and production. After developing an “aging curve” for a player such as Trout, we developed a Monte Carlo simulation to help predict the results for 10,000 seasons of Trout based on the previous three seasons’ production (weighted 45%, 30%, 25%). We continued the process until we wound up with ten seasons of Mike Trout production. What we got was one of the best players of all-time. To boil the numbers down a bit, Trout put up the following WAR (Wins Above Replacement) totals for the years 2014-2024: 8, 11, 11, 8, 11, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 7. Wow. Just. Wow.

Yes, Mike Trout, you are that good.

After we took Trout’s production value, we then assumed each win to be worth $4.5 million on the open market. Multiplying this number by his production we determined his value to be worth approximately $440,000,000 over the course of ten seasons.

Of course we couldn’t reasonably give Mike Trout $440,000,000, could we? Check back later this week to find out how we accounted for risk, what our final proposal was, what the judges thought, and how we spent the rest of our time in Phoenix!