Baseball's Worst MVP Choices

Maybe nobody was talking about it becuase he wasn't one of the top hitters in the league last year.

66 RBI?

 

OPS+!

 

Does the same logic of Ripken in 1991 apply to Andre Dawson's '87 MVP season?

 

If you have a guy just killing the ball in the #3 spot, he will change the pitches thrown to the leadoff man, and assuredly give the #2 hitter tons of fat pitches. He will also help boost the #4 and #5 hitters by being on base, and thus changing their pitches as well.

In basketball, the MVP means the most, but it does mean something in baseball. Probably less than football, but on par with hockey. Hockey drops because of the ice time.

Dude, stop hitting two spaces after your periods. That's what you are doing, right?

 

Yes.

 

Bonds RBI total had as much to do with his lack of playing time, 126 games, 340 ABs, and the Giants terrible offense last season. They had a team batting average of .254 last season, 14th in the NL, and .322 OBP, 15th in the NL and inflated by Bonds' .480 OBP mark.

But you're right that he should have had nothing to do with the MVP vote last season.

 

RBI's are terrible indicator of a hitter's ability. See Joe Carter and Tony Batista.

Bonds shouldn't have been higher than 10th on anyones ballot at the end of the season. Just to repeat myself, I said "at the all star break". He missed way too much time to win MVP last.

 

That's fair. I don't fully agree with it, but you do have a point. Much like how people discredit sabermetrics.

As for the two space thing, that's what I was taught to do in school? But if bugs you I'll gladly try to stop haha.

 

You can argue statistics until you're blue in the face. You can trot out stats that are only important to the worst case seamheads (no offense buckdub!), but statistics don't measure value to a team. They don't measure heart. They don't measure competitive fire. They don't measure the intangibles of playing for a manager you'd run through walls for.

I don't think Pedro deserved an MVP award. He only got out there every fifth day -- that is, if he was healthy. If he wins all his games and his team loses all its games, his team has a shitty record.

I'd have voted for Rollins over Wright for one simple reason: Rollins played in post-season last year. Wright's team choked.

 

But how many games do you see of the contenders who play outside of your locale? How do you know they don't suck when you're not watching? Statistics tell you what you're missing & supplement what you see live & in highlights.

Would you have voted for Victorino over Wright? Burrell?

 

When you write that an MVP should never have a .344 OBP, it sure sounds like you are making it your big determining factor.

Not that I agree with others dismissing OBP as sabermetric nonsense. I don't. But I think you are weighing it too heavily in your judgement of Rollins.

Rollins matched Wright in homers (30). He had 13 fewer RBI, but drove in 26 more runs while shuffling around the lineup. Every other significant member of the Phillies' lineup either went through a prolonged slump of at least a month (Howard in April, Burrell in May and June) or lost a big chunk of the season to injury (Utley and Victorino), so Rollins' role in the lineup was constantly changing.

Wright was a little bit better as a hitter overall due to the walks he drew, but the advantage was not nearly as big as you make it out to be. It also wasn't enough to overcome Rollins' superior defensive skills and the fact that his team made the playoffs, which should be at least a part of the equation.

 

Luckily, Barry got his revenge in the playoffs...oh wait....