1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pujols is NL MVP

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by joe, Nov 17, 2008.

  1. casty33

    casty33 Active Member

    I love how some of you say it was an easy choice and ripped voters for some votes. Hell, it WASN'T an easy choice and I believe the voters did the right thing. Based on my belief that value is determined by a team winning, I would have probably voted for Howard. But I can't find fault with Pujols since he did have the best and most consistent season. And it's not like Andre Dawson's win because the Cardinals didn't finish last. In fact, an argument can be made that they were semi-contenders early in the season. That aside, I can't pick on anything here and while I won't condone the Lidge first-place votes, that was the opinion of some who covered the sport all season.

    And stop picking on the McClouth situation. All he got was a 10th place vote and that is at least understandable.
     
  2. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    No it is not understandable. You're telling me you couldn't find 10 other people more valueable than McClouth?

    And the fact that 2 people voted for Lidge and had supposedly covered the game all season is worse.
     
  3. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    I agree with casty that there really is not much debate over this award, in that all the leading candidates had MVP quality seasons. Pujols is the best all-around hitter in baseball, so he's likely to be a contender every season. Howard led the majors in homers and RBI, Lidge was perfect at his position, which is an important one. Some years, picking an MVP is an exercise in hair-splitting.
    Two general points. 1. Players from non-playoff teams, even losing teams can and do win MVPs with some frequency. The idea of "value" and is not synonymous with "played on a good team."
    2. Relief pitchers can and do win MVPs. A Phillie was the first, in fact, Jim Konstanty in 1950. If the scribes of that era, quite a bit more conservative in their baseball thinking than the ones of casty and my generation, let alone some of the whippersnappers on this board, were willing to elect one, we may regard that argument as settled. Those saying "no" are baying at the moon of history.
     
  4. casty33

    casty33 Active Member

    Thank you, Michael, for having an open mind. Too bad we can't vote anymore. Then again, maybe it's better to avoid the usual criticism that comes with a vote.

    And yes, I do think a 10th place vote for McClouth is okay.
     
  5. SnoopyBoy

    SnoopyBoy Member

    Going on numbers here, Pujols destroyed Howard in batting average, (.357-.251) on-base percentage (.462-.339) and slugging percentage (.653-.543). Not even close.
     
  6. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    but people on here still completeley over value RBI's, RBI's in part are dependant on other people, just like wins for pitchers. there are stats that are out there that value what the individual did that aren't dependant on other factors such as if you have people getting on base in front of you or where you are positioned in the batting order.
     
  7. mike311gd

    mike311gd Active Member

    So it's the innings that get you, not the small amount of games? I'm not disagreeing with you; just trying to follow the logic.

    I think the days of a one-inning closer winning the MVP are gone. Unless you've got a K-Rod-like season, only with Lidge's conversion rate -- plus some outstanding supporting numbers and standout performances -- would I vote for a closer.
     
  8. bostonbred

    bostonbred Guest

    The last pitcher to win NL MVP was Bob Gibson in 1968.

    And the last SP to win it in the AL was Clemens in 1986, although Pedro was robbed in 1999.

    It's not happening anytime soon.
     
  9. MartinEnigmatica

    MartinEnigmatica Active Member

    I dunno, I mean Eckersley won the AL MVP and Cy Young in 1992 with a great season as a reliever. So the days of a pitcher winning any MVP aren't THAT far off, even if it hasn't happened since. I guess when I consider most valuable, I'm looking for the player that, for 162 games, provides the single greatest impact to his team. Closers have a hard time fitting that role for me because they're only getting into between one-third and one-half of their teams' games, and a decent chunk of those appearances happen at the start of an inning with their teams in the lead and with nobody on base -- and that's only if the starter didn't lay an egg, the offense put up runs, the defense didn't make costly errors, and the 7th and 8th inning pitchers escaped potential jams.
    Starting pitchers, of course, only pitch (at best) a fifth of their teams' games, but they're more largely responsible for the outcome of a game.
    Position players, meanwhile, play close to all of the games and have a role in both halves of the inning for (ideally) all nine innings, so it seems somewhat logical to me that the player who is most valuable has the most chances to contribute.
     
  10. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    As a practical matter, Martin's standard for pitchers, starters and relievers, winning MVPs is the one generally used in actual voting, that is, off-the-charts individual seasons. Pedro's problem in 1999 was that about 10 ten players had off the charts season. Manny had 165 RBI and finished sixth in the voting.
    PS: A statistic that is depend in part on other people's play is a valid statistic for measuring value. Assists, runs scored, even strikeouts (try one without a catcher) all take more than one player to accomplish, but teams still need them to win games. An RBI is of great value, because runs are how the score is kept. The "others contributed" meme is one idea from sabermetric theory I regard as complete bullshit.
     
  11. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Saying Strikeouts take more than one player to accomplish is stretching it. I'm not saying they aren't valid, they should be looked at, but when measuring an individuals value all those stats you just mentioned are overated. They are all dependant on having people around you contribute. How do you get a RBI if nobody is on base? How do you score a run if nobody can knock you in(homeruns excluded). OBP is a much better indicator of how effective a batter is than his avg. and it's just now you've started seeing it on the scoreboards at ball parks.
     
  12. OnTheRiver

    OnTheRiver Active Member

    Where's the votes for Adam Kennedy?

    Fuck you, baseball writers.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page