Runs scored are primarily a function of both OBP AND slugging. That nobody has driven in 100 with Ichiro leading off should indicate to you that nobody's slugging the ball very well AT ALL for Seattle this year - a fact which would be painfully obvious to most Mariners fans ......homonger said:
Cy Young and MVP Choices
- Thread starter Ranger68
- Start date
Fucknuts?
Most Valuable Player is, in every other sport, the player most valuable to the success of his team. I will grant you baseball has not taken this approach in the past. They did give AL MVP to the highest paid player the last 2 years Asshat. I believe they were wrong, you probably don't. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You however ARE one.
If OPS is the most valid offensive stat, shouldn't you be touting Melvin Mora? His team is nearly as bad as the Mariners, and his OPS is 130 points higher. Woohoo, go Orioles.
Stats can be manipulated to make a point by selecting those which validate it. I could probably make a statistical case for Gary Sheffield, but I have a life, and besides the mere thought of him as MVP makes me a little nauseous.
Using OPS as the prime criteria, I can see over 20 guys more productive than Ichiro, who stands 46th. Is he the 46th most productive player in the AL? No. Is he the most productive? No.
Is he the best Punch & Judy hitter we've seen in a long time? Yes.
Stats can illustrate any point if you manipulate them.
Play with your stats little boy, I actually like the way the game is played, on the diamond, not on paper, and the ONLY stat that truly matters is Wins.
Now go play with yourself, loser!
Most Valuable Player is, in every other sport, the player most valuable to the success of his team. I will grant you baseball has not taken this approach in the past. They did give AL MVP to the highest paid player the last 2 years Asshat. I believe they were wrong, you probably don't. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. You however ARE one.
If OPS is the most valid offensive stat, shouldn't you be touting Melvin Mora? His team is nearly as bad as the Mariners, and his OPS is 130 points higher. Woohoo, go Orioles.
Stats can be manipulated to make a point by selecting those which validate it. I could probably make a statistical case for Gary Sheffield, but I have a life, and besides the mere thought of him as MVP makes me a little nauseous.
Using OPS as the prime criteria, I can see over 20 guys more productive than Ichiro, who stands 46th. Is he the 46th most productive player in the AL? No. Is he the most productive? No.
Is he the best Punch & Judy hitter we've seen in a long time? Yes.
Stats can illustrate any point if you manipulate them.
Play with your stats little boy, I actually like the way the game is played, on the diamond, not on paper, and the ONLY stat that truly matters is Wins.
Now go play with yourself, loser!
MVP is not simply "Player of the Year". Occasionally a player has such astronomical stats that it doesn't matter that his team is so far behind in the standings. But typically the MVP is someone who is considered to have had a large impact on his respective team's season.
Re: Fucknuts?
Hey BD, I happen to like statistics and how they can be used to better understand a phenomenon. Quant jocks make big money on Wall Street, and I would pity anyone who steps into a casino who doesn't have a rudimentary idea of the probabilities that await them. But that doesn't mean they are the end all and be all, and if you don't care for them, that's fine.
Your argument that statistics can be manipulated to support anyone's point of view is frighteningly old school and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what true statisticians do. The idea is not to try to overwhelm someone with numbers, but to try to use the numbers and the relationships between the numbers to explain what is happening in the real world. Baseball happens to have a rich supply of numbers, and also happens to be an activity which does follow, despite what many might not believe, predictable patterns. If you want to disparage ranger because he irritates you, fine, go ahead, but I think you should try to separate what he is citing (statistics) from what you think of him (asshat), lol.
Wow, it has been a while since we have seen this kind of name calling on TERB. My compliments to Fred or whomever it is who decided to start this Sports Discussion board. Nothing like a little sports talk to rile up the crowd.bigdik said:
Hey BD, I happen to like statistics and how they can be used to better understand a phenomenon. Quant jocks make big money on Wall Street, and I would pity anyone who steps into a casino who doesn't have a rudimentary idea of the probabilities that await them. But that doesn't mean they are the end all and be all, and if you don't care for them, that's fine.
Your argument that statistics can be manipulated to support anyone's point of view is frighteningly old school and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what true statisticians do. The idea is not to try to overwhelm someone with numbers, but to try to use the numbers and the relationships between the numbers to explain what is happening in the real world. Baseball happens to have a rich supply of numbers, and also happens to be an activity which does follow, despite what many might not believe, predictable patterns. If you want to disparage ranger because he irritates you, fine, go ahead, but I think you should try to separate what he is citing (statistics) from what you think of him (asshat), lol.
point taken homonger. I understand stats, and that baseball, more than many sports, does follow patterns. I also realize what true statisticians do. Ranger ( asshat ), only cites those stats which serve to illustrate his points. If you CHOOSE to manipulate the stats this way you could make a solid MVP case for a handful of players. Ichiro, who seems to give Ranger a strong erection, is a hell of a player but I personally would not want 9 of him, would you? I also wouldn't want 9 Manny Ramirez', as someone has to catch the damn ball. I maintain Ichiro doesn't really create runs, as much as simply create baserunners. Even the simplest of fans knows you need baserunners, but it takes 2 hits, or other events which advance the runner, to score him about 87% of the time. Johnny Damon, f'rinstance requires the same occurence only 77% of the time, which could be used to illustrate why he has scored 111 runs to Ichiro's 90. Or not. Maybe it's just because Ichiro's teammates are all having abhorrent slugging years. Maybe it's because Damon can run faster with that stupid hair. There, I've manipulated some numbers. I would vote for option 2, but option 1 has some validity. Option3, well, with what Johnny Damon is paid you'd think he could get a shave and a haircut.
Re: Fucknuts?
That having been said, Mora's having an awesome year - probably better than Ramirez.
Nice try.
I'm sure there ARE those who could make a case for Sheffield - with facts and statistics. Of course, those guys make you nauseous. Stats are for losers.
Stats are what you make of them.
YOU need to try to understand what they're telling you before you pass judgement. CLEARLY you don't understand statistics in any way, shape or form.
What you SHOULD do, is look at ALL the stats. Every stat tells you something. The one stat I look at *first* is Runs Created. You could check the ESPN site, as I posted earlier in this thread, but you won't because stats are for losers.
Fact is, Ichiro IS the most productive player in the league this year.
Ichiro has created more runs for his team than anyone else in the American League, factoring practically everything into the offense. That's WITHOUT adjusting for park factor. He is sixth in the league in Runs Created per 27 outs, first after you account for park factor. That is, if Ichiro were playing in Fenway, and Manny in Safeco, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The fact that you think a guy who's about to break the all-time single-season hits record is a "punch and judy hitter" tells me that you don't REMOTELY understand the game of baseball, forgetting about statistics. I suppose you would have said the same about Pete Rose.
Classic asswipe.
You understand NOTHING, repeat NOTHING about the game on the diamond.
Oh, by the way - Wins are a team stat. They already reward that one - the teams with the most go to the playoffs.
Again, go away.
Point me to a link that proves that your interpretation of the award is correct, rather than mine.bigdik said:
Yeah, the guy who's probably *reasonably* the best-paid player in the sport - you forgot to mention that. I mean, when one of the best defensive shortstops in the game is also one of the best offensive players at any position, you're gonna have a hard time proving that anyone's a better player.bigdik said:
Because one stat doesn't tell you everything about a player. Obviously, you don't know anything about park factor - how playing half your games in one park affects your stats. Or, factored anything else in, like defense or speed.bigdik said:
That having been said, Mora's having an awesome year - probably better than Ramirez.
Again with the team discussion. How is it you've come to the conclusion that the rest of the team impacts at all on how good a player is? Are you just going to give the MVP award to the player who compares most favourably to the rest of his teammates? This ISN'T what I'm arguing, but I'm no longer sure what the hell you're talking about.bigdik said:
I see. When YOU use stats, it's fine - you're making a case for what's obvious. When I use stats, I'm manipulating them to make things appear as they aren't.bigdik said:
Nice try.
I'm sure there ARE those who could make a case for Sheffield - with facts and statistics. Of course, those guys make you nauseous. Stats are for losers.
Stats are what you make of them.
YOU need to try to understand what they're telling you before you pass judgement. CLEARLY you don't understand statistics in any way, shape or form.
I don't use OPS as the "prime criteria". I said that if you're going to look at only ONE stat (not a good idea, but one possibly suited to your limited intellect), you could do worse than to look at OPS. This is what Earl Weaver knew, what Billy Beane knows, and what many baseball fans understand.bigdik said:
What you SHOULD do, is look at ALL the stats. Every stat tells you something. The one stat I look at *first* is Runs Created. You could check the ESPN site, as I posted earlier in this thread, but you won't because stats are for losers.
Fact is, Ichiro IS the most productive player in the league this year.
Ichiro has created more runs for his team than anyone else in the American League, factoring practically everything into the offense. That's WITHOUT adjusting for park factor. He is sixth in the league in Runs Created per 27 outs, first after you account for park factor. That is, if Ichiro were playing in Fenway, and Manny in Safeco, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The fact that you think a guy who's about to break the all-time single-season hits record is a "punch and judy hitter" tells me that you don't REMOTELY understand the game of baseball, forgetting about statistics. I suppose you would have said the same about Pete Rose.
Classic asswipe.
Again, what you mean is that when someone you don't agree with uses statistics - that is, FACTS - to prove their point, statistics lie. When YOU use them (in your severely limited way), they're illustrating truth.bigdik said:
You understand NOTHING, repeat NOTHING about the game on the diamond.
Oh, by the way - Wins are a team stat. They already reward that one - the teams with the most go to the playoffs.
Again, go away.
Last edited:
I'll make my case, you make yours. That's kinda the way it works.bigdik said:
If I want to make a case for Ichiro, I'll use stats to do so (what else can I do?).
If you want to make a case for Manny, you'd be wise to do the same.
Unfortunately, your utter lack of comprehension of not only baseball statistics, but the very game itself, makes any cogent analysis utterly impossible, as evidenced by your silly post. LOL
Oh, by the way, a team with 9 Ichiro's would be one hell of an offensive team - the best in baseball history - and would score more runs than the team with 9 Ramirez', if they played in the same park.
"Punch and Judy Hitters" LOL
From Bill James (of whom I have no idea what bigdik thinks - is he a "true statistician" - whatever the fuck that is - or someone like me who tries to distort "the truth" by using loser-statistics to prove that Orlando Hudson is the best player in baseball history):
"The trend toward more and more homers and more and more strikeouts will also end soon because:
a. Those trends are cyclical.
b. Again, it doesn't really make any sense.
A hitter who swings slowly and punches the ball through the infield or over the infield can hit .320, .330 - always could, and still can. Nobody in baseball has less bat speed than Tony Gwynn, and look at the result: you've got this man nearing 40, fat, can't run, and he still hits .350.
With all these crazy hitting records of the 1990s, nobody has made any real run at Hack Wilson's RBI record. No American Leaguer has made a run at Lou Gehrig's American League RBI record. Why? Individually, power hitters have had seasons which are as good as any in history - but they don't drive in as many runs, and their teams do not score as many runs as the great hitting teams of the 1930s. Why?
Because nobody is setting the table. We've got offenses now that are wall-to-wall power hitters. The only people who aren't power hitters are the guys who don't hit anything: there aren't really any good hitters, other than Tony Gwynn and maybe Jose Offerman, who are singles hitters.
We all know why that is: it's because everybody has got the idea that, to make money, you have to hit homers. That won't stand. The winds of history will blow it flat, because there's no real foundation to it. All it takes is one dramatic counter-example to change the way people think about the issue. Sooner or later, we're going to get some little guy with limited athletic ability who just draws walks and punches singles, somebody will put him in the lineup in front of Albert Belle, or Ken Griffey or Nomar or Juan Gonzalez, and the big guy will drive in 175 runs, and everybody else will go scrambling around looking for little guys who can get on base."
1. This was written before the emergence of Ichiro as an offensive force. Although he has more than "limited athletic ability" he otherwise fits the bill.
2. If Ichiro were hitting first in Boston, he'd have scored about 150 runs already and Manny would have driven in 30 more. Damon isn't anywhere near the leadoff hitter that Ichiro is. It's NOT EVEN CLOSE.
3. It's this sick fascination with dingers that made Dawson the MVP in '87 - and is obviously very prevalent in attitudes like bigdiks - guys who don't sock 30 homers are "punch and judy hitters". Forget the fact that Andre has Wrigley as his home park - he socked 47 dingers! Wow! He must be the MVP!
4. Baseball offense is all about two things: getting on base and slugging. Ichiro is one of the best in the league at getting on base (not to mention putting himself in scoring position). If the Red Sox had more guys with better OBP's, they'd score a raft more runs. If you adjust for the fact that they play in Fenway, they don't nearly lead the league in offense. Why? Wall-to-wall sluggers - more so than any other team, they epitomize what James is talking about. (Please don't forget to correct for park factor before you tell me that they lead the league in OBP. If they played anywhere else, they wouldn't be close.)
5. Anyone who doesn't recognize the significance of the record that Ichiro is approaching doesn't understand the game at all.
From Bill James (of whom I have no idea what bigdik thinks - is he a "true statistician" - whatever the fuck that is - or someone like me who tries to distort "the truth" by using loser-statistics to prove that Orlando Hudson is the best player in baseball history):
"The trend toward more and more homers and more and more strikeouts will also end soon because:
a. Those trends are cyclical.
b. Again, it doesn't really make any sense.
A hitter who swings slowly and punches the ball through the infield or over the infield can hit .320, .330 - always could, and still can. Nobody in baseball has less bat speed than Tony Gwynn, and look at the result: you've got this man nearing 40, fat, can't run, and he still hits .350.
With all these crazy hitting records of the 1990s, nobody has made any real run at Hack Wilson's RBI record. No American Leaguer has made a run at Lou Gehrig's American League RBI record. Why? Individually, power hitters have had seasons which are as good as any in history - but they don't drive in as many runs, and their teams do not score as many runs as the great hitting teams of the 1930s. Why?
Because nobody is setting the table. We've got offenses now that are wall-to-wall power hitters. The only people who aren't power hitters are the guys who don't hit anything: there aren't really any good hitters, other than Tony Gwynn and maybe Jose Offerman, who are singles hitters.
We all know why that is: it's because everybody has got the idea that, to make money, you have to hit homers. That won't stand. The winds of history will blow it flat, because there's no real foundation to it. All it takes is one dramatic counter-example to change the way people think about the issue. Sooner or later, we're going to get some little guy with limited athletic ability who just draws walks and punches singles, somebody will put him in the lineup in front of Albert Belle, or Ken Griffey or Nomar or Juan Gonzalez, and the big guy will drive in 175 runs, and everybody else will go scrambling around looking for little guys who can get on base."
1. This was written before the emergence of Ichiro as an offensive force. Although he has more than "limited athletic ability" he otherwise fits the bill.
2. If Ichiro were hitting first in Boston, he'd have scored about 150 runs already and Manny would have driven in 30 more. Damon isn't anywhere near the leadoff hitter that Ichiro is. It's NOT EVEN CLOSE.
3. It's this sick fascination with dingers that made Dawson the MVP in '87 - and is obviously very prevalent in attitudes like bigdiks - guys who don't sock 30 homers are "punch and judy hitters". Forget the fact that Andre has Wrigley as his home park - he socked 47 dingers! Wow! He must be the MVP!
4. Baseball offense is all about two things: getting on base and slugging. Ichiro is one of the best in the league at getting on base (not to mention putting himself in scoring position). If the Red Sox had more guys with better OBP's, they'd score a raft more runs. If you adjust for the fact that they play in Fenway, they don't nearly lead the league in offense. Why? Wall-to-wall sluggers - more so than any other team, they epitomize what James is talking about. (Please don't forget to correct for park factor before you tell me that they lead the league in OBP. If they played anywhere else, they wouldn't be close.)
5. Anyone who doesn't recognize the significance of the record that Ichiro is approaching doesn't understand the game at all.
Oh really? Well here's the list of the last 10 players to win the AL MVP and only once in the past 10 years has the AL MVP come from a team that didn't finish in first place:Ranger68 said:
Year Player - Team Finished
2003 Alex Rodriguez - 4th Place
2002 Miguel Tejada - 1st Place
2001 Ichiro Suzuki - 1st Place
2000 Jason Giambi - 1st Place
1999 Ivan Rodriguez - 1st Place
1998 Juan Gonzalez - 1st Place
1997 Ken Griffey, Jr. - 1st Place
1996 Juan Gonzalez - 1st Place
1995 Mo Vaughn - 1st Place
1994 Frank Thomas - 1st Place
1993 Frank Thjomas - 1st Place
First off, you're talking *divisional* finish - that is, where they finished *out of four or five teams*. Just to be clear.
However, yes, in MOST of the last decade, the voters have given the AL award to a player from a divisional winner. I'll even grant that it is *possibly* slightly out of context with actual performance (Tejada stands out slightly, although the other names and performances seem perfectly reasonable to me). BUT, we don't really know, from just what you've posted - were there better players on worse teams that were overlooked?
Over the same span in the NL, the award went to a divisional winner *less* than half the time (five out of eleven). Barry Bonds, quite reasonably, won many of those.
Historically, over the last 50 years, the MVP award has been given to a *divisional* winner about two-thirds of the time, while before divisional play it went to a league winner with about the same frequency.
This, in and of itself, isn't enough to say much about my statement. Unfortunately, ocean, if you really want to do that, you're going to have to look at each instance of the award and show players who played on worse teams who have a strong argument for being better candidates for the award. This would argue against my assertion that the BBWAA have tried to vote for the best player, regardless of team finish.
Fortunately for you (or perhaps not), I already did this study several years ago for my own entertainment. I am reasonably certain that standings-bias plays little part in the voting of the BBWAA - that is, I found *very few* instances of players on worse teams who I deemed *significantly* better (by either the typical standards of voting for the association, or by my own criteria) than the actual winner. I thought, at the time, that such a bias actually existed, but it seemed not to be the case, or at best only mildly.
This is mostly because, of course, the distribution of talent isn't uniform across standings. Better teams have a (sometimes much) higher concentration of good players - players who are going to post MVP-type numbers. This is going to skew the distribution greatly away from random. In a four-team division, this could *easily* double the chances of a first-place team to "win" the award - taking them from 25% to 50%. If you think this is remotely unreasonable, consider that for Seattle, I've proposed *one* candidate - Suzuki, with not even a remote possibility of anyone else - while others have proposed *at least three* from Boston - Ramirez, Damon, Ortiz, with other names at least having been brought forth. This was the case in practically every year I studied - teams higher in the standings had *many* more candidates, and the majority of the strong candidates. As you go back in time, the strong teams tended to be much stronger - there was much less competitive balance than there is now.
I stand by my statement, although I will soften it - if there is a bias towards standings in the MVP voting, it is *not* a strong one. If there is a correlation between standings and MVP awards, above what you would expect based upon talent distribution, it is very weak.
On a somewhat related topic, a study from one of the Baseball Abstracts seemed to indicate that players from New York, specifically, had been *under*represented in terms of awards, based upon team performance. That is, some kind of "reverse bias" seems to have been in play for many decades, rather than the commonly held notion that media attention improves the odds of these players winning post-season awards. FWIW.
However, yes, in MOST of the last decade, the voters have given the AL award to a player from a divisional winner. I'll even grant that it is *possibly* slightly out of context with actual performance (Tejada stands out slightly, although the other names and performances seem perfectly reasonable to me). BUT, we don't really know, from just what you've posted - were there better players on worse teams that were overlooked?
Over the same span in the NL, the award went to a divisional winner *less* than half the time (five out of eleven). Barry Bonds, quite reasonably, won many of those.
Historically, over the last 50 years, the MVP award has been given to a *divisional* winner about two-thirds of the time, while before divisional play it went to a league winner with about the same frequency.
This, in and of itself, isn't enough to say much about my statement. Unfortunately, ocean, if you really want to do that, you're going to have to look at each instance of the award and show players who played on worse teams who have a strong argument for being better candidates for the award. This would argue against my assertion that the BBWAA have tried to vote for the best player, regardless of team finish.
Fortunately for you (or perhaps not), I already did this study several years ago for my own entertainment. I am reasonably certain that standings-bias plays little part in the voting of the BBWAA - that is, I found *very few* instances of players on worse teams who I deemed *significantly* better (by either the typical standards of voting for the association, or by my own criteria) than the actual winner. I thought, at the time, that such a bias actually existed, but it seemed not to be the case, or at best only mildly.
This is mostly because, of course, the distribution of talent isn't uniform across standings. Better teams have a (sometimes much) higher concentration of good players - players who are going to post MVP-type numbers. This is going to skew the distribution greatly away from random. In a four-team division, this could *easily* double the chances of a first-place team to "win" the award - taking them from 25% to 50%. If you think this is remotely unreasonable, consider that for Seattle, I've proposed *one* candidate - Suzuki, with not even a remote possibility of anyone else - while others have proposed *at least three* from Boston - Ramirez, Damon, Ortiz, with other names at least having been brought forth. This was the case in practically every year I studied - teams higher in the standings had *many* more candidates, and the majority of the strong candidates. As you go back in time, the strong teams tended to be much stronger - there was much less competitive balance than there is now.
I stand by my statement, although I will soften it - if there is a bias towards standings in the MVP voting, it is *not* a strong one. If there is a correlation between standings and MVP awards, above what you would expect based upon talent distribution, it is very weak.
On a somewhat related topic, a study from one of the Baseball Abstracts seemed to indicate that players from New York, specifically, had been *under*represented in terms of awards, based upon team performance. That is, some kind of "reverse bias" seems to have been in play for many decades, rather than the commonly held notion that media attention improves the odds of these players winning post-season awards. FWIW.
Alex Rodriguez had a better season in 2002 than Tejada and had an incredible season in 2001. Yet didn't win it either year. Preference went to players who had an impact on a team's winning season. One could even claim A-Rod should have won it in 1996 but once again the edge went to a player from a winning team.
In most years there will be players on good teams and players on bad teams that have outstanding years. MVP voting tends to favor those from winning teams. Notice I said "tends", its not written in stone. If a player from a bad team stands out head-and-shoulders above even the players on the winning teams, thats a different story. But when its close, preference seems to go towards those on winning teams.
As for Barry Bonds, he's in another world so he doesn't prove either argument. He is the MVP in all of baseball for the recent past...
In most years there will be players on good teams and players on bad teams that have outstanding years. MVP voting tends to favor those from winning teams. Notice I said "tends", its not written in stone. If a player from a bad team stands out head-and-shoulders above even the players on the winning teams, thats a different story. But when its close, preference seems to go towards those on winning teams.
As for Barry Bonds, he's in another world so he doesn't prove either argument. He is the MVP in all of baseball for the recent past...
As I said, Tejada stands out slightly (and my study was done before this season), but in 2001 Ichiro had *36* more hits than anyone else and set a single-season record for singles while winning a gold glove. I don't think that's an unreasonable choice. Any time someone breaks a significant record, they have a *drastically* increased chance of winning the MVP.
In 1996, Rodriguez' HR and RBI numbers were outclassed by half a dozen players, Gonzalez among them (these being the two most important statistics in BBWAA voting, historically). Although *I* probably would have given it to him, giving it to Gonzalez was perfectly in line with voting trends.
Again, I will concede that, in close races, voters tend to select players from winning teams - this being some kind of final tie-breaker. This introduces a *very small* bias towards winning teams, but not enough to overcome clear superiority.
Voters tend to give the award to the *best* players, not those from winning teams unless the race for the award is quite close.
Also again, this is a close race. I think Manny will garner TONS of MVP votes and may very well win it - this I said many pages ago. If Suzuki breaks the Hits record though, I don't think there's a chance in hell that Manny will win.
To reiterate, the voters have *tried* to reward the best player in the league, regardless of team standings.
However, when the race is close, they will often default to a player on a winning team.
In 1996, Rodriguez' HR and RBI numbers were outclassed by half a dozen players, Gonzalez among them (these being the two most important statistics in BBWAA voting, historically). Although *I* probably would have given it to him, giving it to Gonzalez was perfectly in line with voting trends.
Again, I will concede that, in close races, voters tend to select players from winning teams - this being some kind of final tie-breaker. This introduces a *very small* bias towards winning teams, but not enough to overcome clear superiority.
Voters tend to give the award to the *best* players, not those from winning teams unless the race for the award is quite close.
Also again, this is a close race. I think Manny will garner TONS of MVP votes and may very well win it - this I said many pages ago. If Suzuki breaks the Hits record though, I don't think there's a chance in hell that Manny will win.
To reiterate, the voters have *tried* to reward the best player in the league, regardless of team standings.
However, when the race is close, they will often default to a player on a winning team.
I didn't say it was an "unreasonable" choice. I said a case could have been made to give it to A-Rod.Ranger68 said:
Well no kidding. That puts the particular player head and shoulders above players on winning teams.
But Rodriguez had a higher average, more runs scored, and more SB (if I remember correctly). But Gonzalez was able to carry the vote with only two stats since he had a major impact on a winning team.
In most seasons it will be close. I barely remember many seasons where a player from a losing team had a great year wasn't compared to a player on a winning team that had a great year. And more often than not, the player from the winning team gets the nod...
1. I think you could "make a case" for giving it to A-Rod every year, but that ain't gonna happen.ocean976124 said:
2. Gonzalez' strengths were homeruns and rbi, the two most important numbers, BY FAR, to the MVP voters.
3. I'm not sure that it's all that close in *most* seasons - or even half of them, but that's debatable, I suppose.
4. More often than not, the best player in the league plays for a winning team, so .....
Fine, but I often disagree with Gammons. If Ichiro breaks the record, he'll be surprised. Also, Ichiro's speed and defense were *vastly* superior to all those guys he listed who got on base more than he's on pace to this year. Delgado? Giambi? Bagwell? Puhlease - all firstbasemen. Delgado better hit a TON more than Ichiro to make up for those deficits. Also, he fails to compensate, as most borderline analysts do, for park factor. Ichiro, IMO, should NOT be penalized for playing in a non-hitters' park. Just as you wouldn't fail to compensate for a guy who plays in Coors. Ichiro is NOT putting up an offensive display for the ages, EXCEPT for his hit totals, which are *historically* good.bigdik said:
NO WAY is Rivera the MVP. No way should he or Gagne win the Cy Young.
If he really thinks that Pavano *should* win the Cy over Johnson, it would support my belief that he's not that much of a baseball expert, frankly.
Actually, asshat, it says the Hart is given to " the player judged to be most valuable to his team" This, to me, states it is not an award for individual success but rather an award for the player whose contributions were integral to team achievements, but then I can read. You have proven, time and again you either can't, or won't.
