The Baseball Thread Titled IX - play fair

No fucking way. That guy is one of sports' biggest douchebags. Fuck him. And just wait. DeJesus is turning into a damn good player.

And speaking of the Royals ... PUT IT ON THE BOARD! Another contender can't figure out how to beat the Royals.

Kansas City 7, ChiSox 5. They gone!

 

I was kind of hoping that last fly ball would be a little deeper, just so Hawktard could empty his bowels prematurely.

 

So you're saying home runs should determine MVPs? In that case, Pujols could finish with 49 home runs, but more RBI with the far better averages across the board, and he doesn't deserve it because he didn't hit 50 homers?

Sorry, but that's a far worse argument than me bringing with playoffs with respect to each player's team.

 

Cecil Fielder hit 51 homers in 1990, the first guy to hit 50 since 1977, but got beaten out in the MVP voting by Rickey Henderson.

 

Because--say it with me folks!!--the A's made the playoffs and the Tigers didn't.

 

So how do you explain Ernie Banks, Andre Dawson and Sammy Sosa winning a combined four MVP awards while playing for Chicago teams that had been eliminated from post-season contention in August?

 

Cubs ass-kissing. Sort of like Heisman winners from Notre Dame on teams under .500.

 

Sosa led the Cubs to the playoffs in 1998.

As for Banks and Dawson, I've said before that I'd agree with a player from a non-playoff or non-contending team being named MVP if his numbers were far superior to anyone else in the league. Though Dawson hit 49 HRs in 1987, it was a.) the year of the juiced ball and b.) not superior enough to Ozzie Smith's performance to warrant the MVP, at least in my opinion.

Most outstanding player? Sure. But not the most valuable.

 

I don't really get that distinction.

It's a league MVP.

To me, and I know I'm in the vast minority here for some reason, that means the award should go to the guy who would have helped out the most teams the most.

Outstanding IS valuable to me.

 

Jones hit 51 homers last season and didn't win MVP. That's because hitting home runs is basically all he did. He was average at getting on base and terrible with RISP.

 

Just an awful criteria to take up what seems to be at least a third of the player's MVP "grade".

One player, especially an everyday player, does not have THAT much impact, where if a team finishes four games back that a) that player wasn't succeeding under more pressure situations than a player on a playoff team and b) that player was in ANY way responsible for his team not making the postseason. In any way.

 

Without Pujols (who was out for six weeks), the Cards would really suck.
Without Howard, the Phils would be far behind the Nats (hi, Moddy!). Sounds like a wash to me.
By no means did I intend to imply homers are the leading factor in MVP voting. But IF a player leads his league in homers and RBI, as Howard does now, history says he has a leg up in the voting, that's all.