Lackluster Performance Puts Carlos Correa in Running for the AL's Least Valuable Player

[Mydaughterhastwins]

1 hour ago, Doctor Evil said:

Unlike Mr. Buxton, who is providing zero defensive value and has similar offensive stats, Correa seems to be really solid at a premium position.

There is much lower hanging fruit on the bit#&h list.

Thanks for your enlightened diagnosis, Doctor.  For my money, Byron has been the LVTwin.  Time to start saying it out loud.  Byron is not going to have the career we had hoped.  Not even close.  Constantly injured, no defense, clogging up the DH flexibility.  I'm empathetic in his regard, (I so want him to be great) but very frustrated and running out of patience as a fan.

[Jacksson]

8 hours ago, Kummel said:

Ouch.  At least Correa still makes plays look easy at shortstop.   

At what he is being paid to perform, he should be able to cover 3B and 2B as well as SS.

[Jacksson]

7 hours ago, MABB1959 said:

Obviously the medical staff in SF and NY saw things the medical staff that the Twins did not.  That money should have been spent on a #1/2 starter and the Twins would have an all star that would easily been the face of the franchise and leader this team is lacking.  They wanted a “big name” but certainly not a leader for the LVP.  It is nice for those who keep saying he will turn it around. 

I still believe that the Gallo signing was a "Payoff" to Boras for his turning back to the Twins with Correa

[Jacksson]

Too many sub-par offensive performers on the Twins.  That and the injuries are the problems.

Buxton, Gallo, Correa, Kepler, Taylor, Vasquez, Miranda, Larnach, and Pagan (just because he is Pagan),

Polanco, Mahle, Paddack, Celestino, Gordon, Stewart, Thielbar, DeLeon

And then there are some questionable trades made by management coupled with some questionable medical reviews of player targets by the medical staff.

 

[USAFChief]

16 hours ago, DJL44 said:

It's pretty clear to me the least valuable player for the Twins has been Jose Miranda.

Agree on the published criteria for MVP. 

But I don't think Miranda has played enough to be "LVP." I guess you can argue he hasn't played enough BECAUSE he's been so bad, but for my money, Buxton has been "least valuable."

He's got the 2nd most PAs, has just 54 hits and has a paltry 34 RBI batting in a production spot all year, all while providing zero defensive contribution. Not a single inning.

He's been as responsible for the mediocre W/L record as anyone on the team. Massive playing time, dismal results.

 

[Battle ur tail off]

He has been a disappointment so far, that is for sure. So has Buxton. That said, he is still a middle of the diamond defensive +, so I still love having him on our team. He will likely have a below average year offensively. Either way, I am glad we have him signed here for now and into the future. I don't expect him to continue to play this bad the rest of his contract. 

[David Maro]

The bigger problem is he seems to have the FO ear on things like Buxton to DH and bringing certain players in. It has been said he wanted J Lopez and we see how that worked out. He does lead the team in hitting into DP. Most fans think a player being paid 30+ million a year should lead on the field.

[Cap'n Piranha]

19 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Steve Cohen should have put an end to that line of thinking this offseason. The Angels have not been held back one bit because of Trout's paycheck. They have been held back because the Angels front office has been selecting the wrong players for his supporting cast.

The rules for the MVP voting don't mention anything about production per dollar, just how good a player is on offense and defense. I would vote for MVP (and by corollary LVP) based on the rules, not on your alternate criteria.

It's pretty clear to me the least valuable player for the Twins has been Jose Miranda.

Expecting owners to lose millions on their teams every year just because "they can afford it" is silly.  Most people who spend more than they make because they can afford it pretty soon find they no longer can.  Why do you think the Angels have had such a hard time selecting the right players for their supporting cast?  Is it possibly because they have to minimize their spending to an average of $4M-$5M per player, thus creating a shallower pool of talent from which to choose?

I'm not arguing what the rules are--I'm arguing what I believe to be the true definition of value.  Getting a disproportionately higher level of production for pay is incredibly valuable, as it frees up teams to spend more on other players.  This is in no way debateable.  Whether you want to include that in your calculus is entirely up to you, and is of course your right, but to pretend that in modern baseball it is irrelevant how much a player makes is just not rooted in reality.

[DJL44]

6 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Expecting owners to lose millions on their teams every year just because "they can afford it" is silly. 

There are no owners in MLB losing money.

[Cap'n Piranha]

4 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

There are no owners in MLB losing money.

Steve Cohen might be.  And if all owners acted like Steve Cohen, I guarantee you most owners would lose money.

[Mike Sixel]

16 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

There are no owners in MLB losing money.

Also, no one is expecting anyone to lose money on purpose. No one that is rational anyway. But that straw man is powerful for some, I guess. (not you, clearly)

[DJL44]

50 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

to pretend that in modern baseball it is irrelevant how much a player makes is just not rooted in reality.

But it doesn't matter for determining who the MVP is in a given year. If you want to give the front office an award for obtaining on-field value for the lowest cost you're more than welcome to do so.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

Also, no one is expecting anyone to lose money on purpose. No one that is rational anyway. But that straw man is powerful for some, I guess. (not you, clearly)

When I see posters claiming that the only impediment to teams winning is owners not being willing to spend more, it is clear some people do expect the owners to lose money.  If no one expects the owners to lose money, then there clearly is a cap to how much players can make (total team revenues less all other costs to operate an MLB franchise).  Therefore, the more an individual player makes, the less pay there is available for other players, unless of course, we do expect an owner to lose money.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

But it doesn't matter for determining who the MVP is in a given year. If you want to give the front office an award for obtaining on-field value for the lowest cost you're more than welcome to do so.

It's not about the lowest cost--that's the misnomer here.  If Mike Trout goes out and puts up a .400/.550/.800 slash line with 75 homers and 60 stolen bases, all while winning the platinum glove in CF--which results in 20 WAR--he can absolutely win MVP, even with a $37M salary.  Value is about balance between production and cost; look at Costco for example.  Costco does not try and sell the cheapest possible goods, they try and sell goods that are at the highest possible intersection of high quality and (relatively) low price.  MVP should not go to whichever pre-arb player has the highest WAR, it should go to the player who has the best mix of high production and (again, relatively) low cost.  A 6 WAR player at $14M a year is not a better player than 8 WAR Mike Trout at $37M.  But given the extra $23M a year to spend elsewhere, they are more valuable.

[DJL44]

4 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

MVP should not go to whichever pre-arb player has the highest WAR, it should go to the player who has the best mix of high production and (again, relatively) low cost. 

No, it most definitely should not. That has never been the criteria for the MVP award and it should never be the criteria for the MVP award. The MVP is the player who contributes the most on the field to his team's success. Their salary is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[USAFChief]

7 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

It's not about the lowest cost--that's the misnomer here.  If Mike Trout goes out and puts up a .400/.550/.800 slash line with 75 homers and 60 stolen bases, all while winning the platinum glove in CF--which results in 20 WAR--he can absolutely win MVP, even with a $37M salary.  Value is about balance between production and cost; look at Costco for example.  Costco does not try and sell the cheapest possible goods, they try and sell goods that are at the highest possible intersection of high quality and (relatively) low price.  MVP should not go to whichever pre-arb player has the highest WAR, it should go to the player who has the best mix of high production and (again, relatively) low cost.  A 6 WAR player at $14M a year is not a better player than 8 WAR Mike Trout at $37M.  But given the extra $23M a year to spend elsewhere, they are more valuable.

Your definition of value has merit, but it's not the BBWAA definition of MVP.

Maybe that's the disconnect here.

[Cap'n Piranha]

On 7/13/2023 at 6:31 PM, USAFChief said:

Your definition of value has merit, but it's not the BBWAA definition of MVP.

Maybe that's the disconnect here.

Yup, I called that out in my post from Thursday at 8:55 (start of second paragraph).  I’m under no illusion that my viewpoint is how current MVPs are decided.  I’m saying it should be, because the current system only considers one side of the value coin.  Change the name of the award to MOP (Most Outstanding Player), and I’d have no issue whatsoever with the current criteria.

[DJL44]

5 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Yup, I called that out in my post from Thursday at 8:55 (start of second paragraph).  I’m under no illusion that my viewpoint is how current MVPs are decided.  I’m saying it should be, because the current system only considers one side of the value coin.  Change the name of the award to MOP (Most Outstanding Player), and I’d have no issue whatsoever with the current criteria.

Your criteria should be called "Most Underpaid Player". It is more of an insult than an honor. If you receive that award you know you got screwed over the most by your boss.

[PseudoSABR]

A disappointment in projected results doesn't equate to least valuable.  Come on, he's got a positive WAR, thus has positive value.  Sigh.