PDA

View Full Version : NL mvp?


ChiSoxFan7
08-18-2008, 03:01 PM
As TCQ fights for his MVP...


Who wins it in this NL

Right now?

and who actually Wins it?

hellview
08-18-2008, 03:03 PM
Pujols or Utley.

hi im skot
08-18-2008, 03:09 PM
Sabathia has to get serious consideration.

hellview
08-18-2008, 03:12 PM
Sabathia has to get serious consideration.

No he shouldn't...

1) Cause he's a pitcher

2) Cause he's hasn't spent the entire season in the NL.

DumpJerry
08-18-2008, 03:20 PM
I just checked with the Cub fan in my office. He could not come up with anyone who should get serious consideration. Not even a Cub. Brandon Webb's name came up, but for Cy Young.

Rockabilly
08-18-2008, 03:30 PM
Utley

palehozenychicty
08-18-2008, 03:43 PM
I think Utley will win it by default. He started out blazing the first couple months, then disappeared in the middle of the year. If he can carry them into the postseason, he'll get it.

Eddo144
08-18-2008, 03:45 PM
Berkman's having the best year, but the Astros have been out of the race all year.

Pujols is having his typical freakishly good season, but he does this every year so it's gone relatively unnoticed. Plus, the Cardinals are on the outside of the playoff picture right now.

Utley has tailed off a bit, though he's still having a very good year. The Phillies are in the same boat as the Cardinals with regards to the playoffs right now.

Sabathia is a pitcher and will have logged only half a year in the NL, so he's out.

With none of the likely playoff teams having a true standout, I'd say the best bet is Pujols right now. The Cardinals might even be able to sneak in as the Wild Card, which would probably lock it up for him.

seventyseven
08-18-2008, 03:48 PM
Ludwick may be more deserving than Pujols. They may split the vote, though.

The award will likely go to Utley, though I think Webb is the most important player to his team.

oeo
08-18-2008, 03:48 PM
I just checked with the Cub fan in my office. He could not come up with anyone who should get serious consideration. Not even a Cub. Brandon Webb's name came up, but for Cy Young.

Not even Fook-a-dome-ay? Isn't he having a great year?

Oh wait...

GAsoxfan
08-18-2008, 03:59 PM
How about Ryan Braun?

His numbers are pretty impressive (.301 BA, 31 HR, 86 RBI, and .933 OPS). He beats Utley in all of those categories. If the Brewers make the playoffs, I think he should be the MVP.

South Side Irish
08-18-2008, 04:03 PM
Sabathia has to get serious consideration.

I agree - the Brewers don't sniff the playoffs without him. If a pitcher is ever to win the MVP, he's got a good case. However, half a season probably isn't fair.

I think Utley will win it by default. He started out blazing the first couple months, then disappeared in the middle of the year. If he can carry them into the postseason, he'll get it.

Why Utley? Hell, why any Phil? Howard and Rolen have both (undeservedly) won it the last 2 seasons. His numbers put him as the 5th or 6th best player in the NL anyway.

Pujols is having his typical freakishly good season, but he does this every year so it's gone relatively unnoticed. Plus, the Cardinals are on the outside of the playoff picture right now.

Utley has tailed off a bit, though he's still having a very good year. The Phillies are in the same boat as the Cardinals with regards to the playoffs right now.

With none of the likely playoff teams having a true standout, I'd say the best bet is Pujols right now. The Cardinals might even be able to sneak in as the Wild Card, which would probably lock it up for him.

With or without the playoffs, Pujols should be money. This team was supposed to be a 65 win disaster, but his presence and work ethic have changed the team. On top of that, he's on pace to go .350/30/100... again.

Ludwick may be more deserving than Pujols. They may split the vote, though.

The award will likely go to Utley, though I think Webb is the most important player to his team.

Ludwick is very, very intersting. I wonder if his numbers are a bit inflated though, as he hits behind Pujols. Pujols has something like a 1.075 OPS, so someone's on base quite frequently in front of him.

I see no reason why Chase Utley should win the MVP. He's a good player, the best 2B in the NL (possibly MLB). But I can't find one good reason why people think he should win other than laziness and resorting to this same discussion in May.

hellview
08-18-2008, 04:03 PM
Ludwick may be more deserving than Pujols. They may split the vote, though.


You have lost your mind if you think Ludwick should win the MVP over Pujols.

Lets me honest, it's Pujols. Were just so used to him putting up these monster numbers that he somehow flies under the radar.

hellview
08-18-2008, 04:05 PM
I agree - the Brewers don't sniff the playoffs without him. If a pitcher is ever to win the MVP, he's got a good case. However, half a season probably isn't fair.


If Pedro didn't win it in 1999 then CC shouldn't even be a thought in peoples head.

turners56
08-18-2008, 04:11 PM
You have lost your mind if you think Ludwick should win the MVP over Pujols.

Lets me honest, it's Pujols. Were just so used to him putting up these monster numbers that he somehow flies under the radar.

It's closer than you think it is.

Ludwick - .993 OPS
Pujols - 1.076 OPS

Yes, Pujols should win, but you make it sound like Ludwick and Pujols shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.

Berkman should also get some serious consideration.

hellview
08-18-2008, 04:14 PM
It's closer than you think it is.

Ludwick - .993 OPS
Pujols - 1.076 OPS

Yes, Pujols should win, but you make it sound like Ludwick and Pujols shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.

Berkman should also get some serious consideration.

Also factor in that why do you think Ludwicks numbers are so good, maybe cause he's got a guy with a .450 OBP and one of the scariest bat in the league hitting in front of him.

I've read people discount Hamilton on this board for having Young, Bradley and Kinsler in the same lineup. If that's the case then you can't just look at Pujol/Lidwicks OPS and say it's closer then it seems.

South Side Irish
08-18-2008, 04:15 PM
It's closer than you think it is.

Ludwick - .993 OPS
Pujols - 1.076 OPS

Yes, Pujols should win, but you make it sound like Ludwick and Pujols shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.

Berkman should also get some serious consideration.

It's not that Ludwick hasn't put up worthy numbers. I'd have to go look at VORP or game winning RBI, but I'm pretty sure Albert beats him there. And bottom line - ask pitchers who they'd like to pitch to least (especially Philadelphia closers :wink: ). Pujols is the engine in that Cardnial offense. You might have other good pieces, but it's worthless without Pujols.

ComiskeyBrewer
08-18-2008, 04:19 PM
Sabathia has to get serious consideration.

Cy Young, sure. But not MVP. I think Pujols and Braun should both get some serious looking at.

seventyseven
08-18-2008, 04:42 PM
You have lost your mind if you think Ludwick should win the MVP over Pujols.

Lets me honest, it's Pujols. Were just so used to him putting up these monster numbers that he somehow flies under the radar.

My wife is a borderline-insane Cardinal fan, so I see my share of Cardinal games on Extra Innings.

The reason why Ludwick, whether he hits 2nd or 4th, is so valuable to the Cardinals is that the opposing pitcher cannot solely focus on Pujols. Ludwick's emergence has led to less intentional walks of Pujols, and more RBIs from elsewhere in the lineup. It also makes it hard to bring in some nasty RHP from the bullpen to pitch to only Pujols in the 8th/9th. You have to get Ludwick out, too.

I'm not saying he's more deserving, but you cannot understate his importance to the Cardinals this season.

doublem23
08-18-2008, 04:45 PM
It's closer than you think it is.

Ludwick - .993 OPS
Pujols - 1.076 OPS

Yes, Pujols should win, but you make it sound like Ludwick and Pujols shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.

Berkman should also get some serious consideration.

Pujols still puts up those numbers without Ludwick, but Ludwick doesn't without Albert.

seventyseven
08-18-2008, 04:49 PM
Pujols still puts up those numbers without Ludwick, but Ludwick doesn't without Albert.

I don't think it's that simple. In my mind, the MVP is the player who provides the most value to his team. Pujols is the best hitter, if not player, in the game. But Ludwick's contributions this year have made the whole Cardinals lineup a different animal, which has overcome their awful bullpen and lack of team speed.

turners56
08-18-2008, 04:58 PM
Also factor in that why do you think Ludwicks numbers are so good, maybe cause he's got a guy with a .450 OBP and one of the scariest bat in the league hitting in front of him.

I've read people discount Hamilton on this board for having Young, Bradley and Kinsler in the same lineup. If that's the case then you can't just look at Pujol/Lidwicks OPS and say it's closer then it seems.

Ludwick bats ahead of Pujols (he's in the 2 hole, Pujols in the 3 hole). But what you said contradicts your point. You just said that Ludwick is Pujols' protection, meaning he is part of the reason for Pujols' success. It's the other way around.

Hamilton is not THAT good. He was earlier in the season, but he's cooled down considerably. I don't even think he's top 5 in the AL in OPS anymore. Besides, he's not even the best offensive player on his team.

He gets protected by a guy by the name of Milton Bradley who has an OPS+ of 165! Yeah, 165, he's 65% better than the league average. Hamilton's hanging around 140.

Bradley gets on base almost 45% of the time and slugs better than Hamilton. He might not have the RBIs and homers to back it up, but he has been the most productive offensive player on that team, whether you like to think it or not.

turners56
08-18-2008, 04:59 PM
Pujols still puts up those numbers without Ludwick, but Ludwick doesn't without Albert.

Ludwick did bat behind Pujols for a while. He doesn't anymore though (although I remember somebody saying he bats 4th sometimes too).

You can't discredit Ludwick, he's had a great season. But to say that Ludwick doesn't deserve consideration for NL MVP is stupid.

turners56
08-18-2008, 05:05 PM
It's not that Ludwick hasn't put up worthy numbers. I'd have to go look at VORP or game winning RBI, but I'm pretty sure Albert beats him there. And bottom line - ask pitchers who they'd like to pitch to least (especially Philadelphia closers :wink: ). Pujols is the engine in that Cardnial offense. You might have other good pieces, but it's worthless without Pujols.

You can't compare VORP from different positions. And game winning RBI is not a very fair stat to judge individual players. Those are situational. What's better to look at is their late and close stats.

South Side Irish
08-18-2008, 05:12 PM
You can't compare VORP from different positions. And game winning RBI is not a very fair stat to judge individual players. Those are situational. What's better to look at is their late and close stats.

Yes, late and close is what I meant, and when I say comparing VORP, I mean relative to their positions (like Pujols to Berkman and Ludwick to other OF).

South Side Irish
08-18-2008, 05:13 PM
Ludwick did bat behind Pujols for a while. He doesn't anymore though (although I remember somebody saying he bats 4th sometimes too).

I was at the Cards game 2 weeks ago and saw Ludwick bat 4th.

TDog
08-18-2008, 05:16 PM
No he shouldn't...

1) Cause he's a pitcher

2) Cause he's hasn't spent the entire season in the NL.

Neither of those facts disqualify him. In fact, he will get votes, a lot of votes, maybe more than Willie Hernandez got in 1984 when he won the AL MVP. That same year, Rick Sutcliffe started the season in the AL and finished fourth in the NL MVP voting, despite being a pitcher.

Oddly enough, Sabathia at this moment is second in the AL and second in the NL in complete games.

turners56
08-18-2008, 05:19 PM
Yes, late and close is what I meant, and when I say comparing VORP, I mean relative to their positions (like Pujols to Berkman and Ludwick to other OF).

Pujols has a 2 point lead over Berkman in terms of VORP. Ludwick is second among all OF in the NL in VORP, and is 12 points behind Matt Holliday.

Pujols also kills Ludwick in late and close.

I never said Ludwick was better than Pujols or should win the MVP, I'm saying that he should get consideration...

turners56
08-18-2008, 05:23 PM
Neither of those facts disqualify him. In fact, he will get votes, a lot of votes, maybe more than Willie Hernandez got in 1984 when he won the AL MVP. That same year, Rick Sutcliffe started the season in the AL and finished fourth in the NL MVP voting, despite being a pitcher.

Oddly enough, Sabathia at this moment is second in the AL and second in the NL in complete games.

He's also 13-8 with a 3.04 ERA overall and 7-0 since joining the Brewers I think. The Brewers are 7-1 in his starts. He also has a 1.55 ERA in the NL. Talk about domination after moving to another league. In addition to that, he's 4 CGs in a Brewers uniform, saving that terrible bullpen that Milwaukee has for other situations to screw up in.

However, there's a fine line between who contributes everyday when it comes to the MVP. Relievers usually have more of a chance at MVPs because they can pitch everyday and contribute. Starters on the other hand, do it every 5th day, so there is the difference. That's also why K-Rod will end up getting a bunch of undeserving votes for MVP. Sabathia should get a lot of attention for Cy Young, but the MVP is out of his hands considering the NL has names like Pujols, Berkman, Utley, and etc.

hellview
08-18-2008, 05:27 PM
Ludwick bats ahead of Pujols (he's in the 2 hole, Pujols in the 3 hole). But what you said contradicts your point. You just said that Ludwick is Pujols' protection, meaning he is part of the reason for Pujols' success. It's the other way around.


That's funny cause most of Ludwicks at bats are batting 4th.

turners56
08-18-2008, 05:27 PM
That's funny cause most of Ludwicks at bats are batting 4th.

Not recently. He has twice as many ABs as he does in the 4 hole than the 2 hole. But if you look at the boxscores as of late, he is batting in the 2-hole. There's really no difference from him batting ahead of or behind Pujols. Albert is not really helping him out that much.

hellview
08-18-2008, 05:28 PM
The reason why Ludwick, whether he hits 2nd or 4th, is so valuable to the Cardinals is that the opposing pitcher cannot solely focus on Pujols. Ludwick's emergence has led to less intentional walks of Pujols, and more RBIs from elsewhere in the lineup. It also makes it hard to bring in some nasty RHP from the bullpen to pitch to only Pujols in the 8th/9th. You have to get Ludwick out, too.


Once again that's funny cause Pujols is on pace to set a new career high in bb for a season.

turners56
08-18-2008, 05:30 PM
Once again that's funny cause Pujols is on pace to set a new career high in bb for a season.

He's also on pace for his second best season at the plate (average wise) .

hellview
08-18-2008, 05:30 PM
Not recently. And recently is when he's started to heat up again.

In the Cards last 10 games Ludwick has batted 4th 6 outta 10 times.

turners56
08-18-2008, 05:32 PM
In the Cards last 10 games Ludwick has batted 4th 6 outta 10 times.

In the last 3 games, he's batted 2nd all 3 times.

turners56
08-18-2008, 05:33 PM
In the Cards last 10 games Ludwick has batted 4th 6 outta 10 times.

As I said before, there is no difference in Ludwick's performance whether he bats 2nd or 4th. His OPS is a couple of points off and he actually hits better in the 4th slot by a couple of points. Whether he protects Pujols or is being protected by Pujols, he performs just as well.

hellview
08-18-2008, 05:34 PM
In the last 3 games, he's batted 2nd all 3 times.

I don't even know how you can argue about this. He's had the most atbats hitting 4th all season long. So in turn the majority of his numbers are with Pujols hitting in front of him.

You can't argue about this...

turners56
08-18-2008, 05:36 PM
I don't even know how you can argue about this. He's had the most atbats hitting 4th all season long. So in turn the majority of his numbers are with Pujols hitting in front of him.

You can't argue about this...

AND WITH PUJOLS HITTING IN FRONT OF HIM, HE IS PROTECTING PUJOLS. HE DOES NOT BENEFIT!!!! Unless of course, you think RBIs matter that much.

What part of that don't you get?

You're going back on your own point here.

Scroll down (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=5036)

TDog
08-18-2008, 05:45 PM
.... Relievers usually have more of a chance at MVPs because they can pitch everyday and contribute. Starters on the other hand, do it every 5th day, so there is the difference. That's also why K-Rod will end up getting a bunch of undeserving votes for MVP. Sabathia should get a lot of attention for Cy Young, but the MVP is out of his hands considering the NL has names like Pujols, Berkman, Utley, and etc.

I believe more starting pitchers than relievers have won the MVP. I haven't looked it up, but I believe Willie Hernandez and Jim Konstanty are the only player in major league history who have been named MVPs without starting a regular season game.

South Side Irish
08-18-2008, 08:54 PM
I never said Ludwick was better than Pujols or should win the MVP, I'm saying that he should get consideration...

I'm not arguing - I totally agree! :gulp:

South Side Irish
08-18-2008, 08:58 PM
I don't even know how you can argue about this. He's had the most atbats hitting 4th all season long. So in turn the majority of his numbers are with Pujols hitting in front of him.

You can't argue about this...

Yes, Luddy has hit 4th more than 2nd. But you're forgetting who is managing him - Tony LaRussa - who's lineup changes make Ozzie seem consistent. You know, the pitcher hitting 8th? :wink: He's seen Luddy hit 2nd the last 3 games, most people could have made the same assumption as turner having done that.

Foulke You
08-19-2008, 01:43 AM
David Wright of the Mets is having a heck of a year too. .292 avg 23 HR 95 RBI. David Wright or Ryan Braun would be my two picks for NL MVP.

I don't think Pujols gets it again unless the Cards make the postseason. Hanley Ramirez has the HRs but not enough RBIs but he could make a run at it if he gets hot. The Cubs have a couple guys having good seasons (Ramirez and Soriano) but I wouldn't say either of them are at MVP levels at the moment. If one of them gets hot down the stretch perhaps they could garner some votes. They probably have the same chance Hanley does.

turners56
08-19-2008, 09:57 AM
David Wright of the Mets is having a heck of a year too. .292 avg 23 HR 95 RBI. David Wright or Ryan Braun would be my two picks for NL MVP.

I don't think Pujols gets it again unless the Cards make the postseason. Hanley Ramirez has the HRs but not enough RBIs but he could make a run at it if he gets hot. The Cubs have a couple guys having good seasons (Ramirez and Soriano) but I wouldn't say either of them are at MVP levels at the moment. If one of them gets hot down the stretch perhaps they could garner some votes. They probably have the same chance Hanley does.

RBI = overrated.

I can see Braun though. IMO, the top 5 candidates should be (in no order) Pujols, Berkman, Braun, Utley, Ludwick.

FedEx227
08-19-2008, 11:36 AM
Ryan Braun or Pujols.

veeter
08-19-2008, 02:44 PM
Ryan Howard

JermaineDye05
08-19-2008, 02:52 PM
Andruw Jones

turners56
08-19-2008, 03:04 PM
Andruw Jones

I think he should get the MTP.

PennStater98r
08-19-2008, 03:16 PM
I believe more starting pitchers than relievers have won the MVP. I haven't looked it up, but I believe Willie Hernandez and Jim Konstanty are the only player in major league history who have been named MVPs without starting a regular season game.

Without looking it up, didn't Rollie Fingers win MVP?

PennStater98r
08-19-2008, 03:20 PM
Without looking it up, didn't Rollie Fingers win MVP?

Don't forget that Eck also beat out Big Frank for MVP.

TDog
08-19-2008, 04:22 PM
Don't forget that Eck also beat out Big Frank for MVP.

Right. I forgot about Fingers in the strike year because I pretty much blanked out on the strike year. That was the season when Fingers' former team, the A's, had 60 complete games in a season shortened to 109 games. The A's won the first half but never played well after the stike and went out quicly in the postseason. But I can remember at least four AL starting pitchers being named MVP. I can think of at least three NL starting pitchers who have been named MVP, and I believe Jim Konstanty was the only NL reliever to win the award.

Foulke You
08-19-2008, 05:41 PM
RBI = overrated.

I can see Braun though. IMO, the top 5 candidates should be (in no order) Pujols, Berkman, Braun, Utley, Ludwick.
Are you implying that all of Wright's RBIs are in garbage time situations? I don't watch the Mets enough to know if that is the case, I'm just asking. Honestly though, I don't think you can ever say that RBIs aren't an important stat to look at. RBIs are what wins you ballgames and the more you have, the more games that player has likely helped you win. You can't get 90+ RBI in all meaningless situations.

TDog
08-19-2008, 06:22 PM
RBI = overrated.

I can see Braun though. IMO, the top 5 candidates should be (in no order) Pujols, Berkman, Braun, Utley, Ludwick.

I don't think RBIs are overrated at all. There are deceptively high RBI totals and deceptively high HR totals and deceptively high batting averages. If you're looking at the quality of a hitter to consider what he might do in the future, RBIs are probably the least important of the major stats, just as batting averages with runners in scoring position, however impressive, don't predict future high batting averages with runners in scoring position.

But if you're looking at whether a player is most valuable to a team's success, RBI's are a more important consideration than batting average or on-base percentage. They always have been. When Ted Williams hit .406 while walking 147 times (and striking out only 27 times) he also led the league in home runs (and, of course, slugging percentage and on-base percentage by wide margins). He finished fourth in RBIs, five behind Joe DiMaggio. DiMaggio was named the MVP. That the Red Sox finished a distant second to the Yankees, that DiMaggio led the league in RBIs and the 56-game hitting streak (although Williams had a higher batting average than DiMaggio while the streak was active) led to DiMaggio getting 15 first place votes to Williams' eight. (White Sox pitcher Thornton Lee got the other first-place vote, although he was a pitcher and the White Sox finished .500, 24 games behind the Yankees.)

There are cheap RBIs and runs driven in when games have already been decided. You can say that about every stat. In each of the last two games, Alexei Ramirez has hit home runs with the White Sox in a commanding lead. If you diminish the value of four RBIs coming with a 9-0 lead, you have to diminish he value of his home runs the last two nights as well. Ichiro Suzuki would have had a better night if he had had one less hit but had put the Mariners ahead in the second with a runner on third with one out. Getting two hits with one RBI with two runs scored would have made him more valuable to his team than getting three hits and no RBIs with two runs scored.

When you're talking about Most Valuable Player, RBIs have always been more important to voters than on-base-percentage, regardless of the relative value of the statistics.

soxwon
08-19-2008, 06:31 PM
The entire Cub Roster will win it.
Screw Pujols he's on a third place team, honestly a cub should win it.
Maybe Fukudome!!!

turners56
08-19-2008, 07:06 PM
Are you implying that all of Wright's RBIs are in garbage time situations? I don't watch the Mets enough to know if that is the case, I'm just asking. Honestly though, I don't think you can ever say that RBIs aren't an important stat to look at. RBIs are what wins you ballgames and the more you have, the more games that player has likely helped you win. You can't get 90+ RBI in all meaningless situations.

I'm not implying anything about Wright himself. I'm just saying you can't say somebody is MVP just because of his RBI total and make that a point of yours. Thing is, RBI is not a very individual stat. Yes, you have to get a hit to knock runs in, but any other player could of gotten a hit but not of had anybody on base and he doesn't get an RBI. They're situational. That's one of the reasons I don't view Hamilton as that good. People bring up his amount of runs batted in and try to make a point with it, but how many would he have if he doesn't have Kinsler and Young batting in front of him?

So many people think RBI is such an important, individual stat, but it really isn't. Consider somebody else who hits just as well, but doesn't have the same kind of team around him or isn't in a run-producing spot in the lineup, is it fair to say that the guy with more RBIs is more valuable than he is? There's many other factors you can put into this, but the overall point is, RBI is more of a team-based stat than an individual based stat.

If Melvin Mora had played in the NL and somebody had put so much emphasis on RBI, Mora would literally be just as good as Wright has been.

Mora - .284 20 HR 91 RBI
Wright - .293 23 HR 95 RBI

So, are we going to put Melvin Mora in the discussion for AL MVP then, considering the NL actually has more hitters with monster seasons?

turners56
08-19-2008, 07:08 PM
I don't think RBIs are overrated at all. There are deceptively high RBI totals and deceptively high HR totals and deceptively high batting averages. If you're looking at the quality of a hitter to consider what he might do in the future, RBIs are probably the least important of the major stats, just as batting averages with runners in scoring position, however impressive, don't predict future high batting averages with runners in scoring position.

But if you're looking at whether a player is most valuable to a team's success, RBI's are a more important consideration than batting average or on-base percentage. They always have been. When Ted Williams hit .406 while walking 147 times (and striking out only 27 times) he also led the league in home runs (and, of course, slugging percentage and on-base percentage by wide margins). He finished fourth in RBIs, five behind Joe DiMaggio. DiMaggio was named the MVP. That the Red Sox finished a distant second to the Yankees, that DiMaggio led the league in RBIs and the 56-game hitting streak (although Williams had a higher batting average than DiMaggio while the streak was active) led to DiMaggio getting 15 first place votes to Williams' eight. (White Sox pitcher Thornton Lee got the other first-place vote, although he was a pitcher and the White Sox finished .500, 24 games behind the Yankees.)

There are cheap RBIs and runs driven in when games have already been decided. You can say that about every stat. In each of the last two games, Alexei Ramirez has hit home runs with the White Sox in a commanding lead. If you diminish the value of four RBIs coming with a 9-0 lead, you have to diminish he value of his home runs the last two nights as well. Ichiro Suzuki would have had a better night if he had had one less hit but had put the Mariners ahead in the second with a runner on third with one out. Getting two hits with one RBI with two runs scored would have made him more valuable to his team than getting three hits and no RBIs with two runs scored.

When you're talking about Most Valuable Player, RBIs have always been more important to voters than on-base-percentage, regardless of the relative value of the statistics.

I don't know, RBI is a team-oriented stat, but the way you put it, they would be important considering you're talking about it like who is the best player on the best team. I tend to take a middle on the whole best stats vs. most valuable to his team argument. However, I really don't think RBIs should decide who wins an MVP.

South Side Irish
08-20-2008, 03:25 AM
Ryan Howard

How?

South Side Irish
08-20-2008, 03:26 AM
RBI = overrated.

I can see Braun though. IMO, the top 5 candidates should be (in no order) Pujols, Berkman, Braun, Utley, Ludwick.

Ryan Braun or Pujols.

How's Braun's defense been this year? I remember him being a complete hack last year, but haven't seen/heard much in '08.

turners56
08-20-2008, 09:18 AM
How's Braun's defense been this year? I remember him being a complete hack last year, but haven't seen/heard much in '08.

He's a bit better, but still really bad. His numbers on offense are monstrous, but because of his crappy defense, I really don't see him winning it.

turners56
08-20-2008, 09:19 AM
How?

There is no how. You can't really win an MVP batting .230 and striking out 200 times.

russ99
08-20-2008, 12:00 PM
Berkman had a monster first half. If he can turn it on again the last month and a half, he'd probably get it.

Braun's not a bad choice either. Pitchers don't belong in the MVP discussion, IMO, they have their own award.

It kills me how the Cub fans are throwing Soto's hat in the ring. He'll be ROY for sure, but slow down, guys...

turners56
08-20-2008, 12:45 PM
Berkman had a monster first half. If he can turn it on again the last month and a half, he'd probably get it.

Braun's not a bad choice either. Pitchers don't belong in the MVP discussion, IMO, they have their own award.

It kills me how the Cub fans are throwing Soto's hat in the ring. He'll be ROY for sure, but slow down, guys...

Soto's not even the best offensive player on his own team.

Adele_H
08-20-2008, 12:48 PM
AND WITH PUJOLS HITTING IN FRONT OF HIM, HE IS PROTECTING PUJOLS. HE DOES NOT BENEFIT!!!!

What part of that don't you get?





Maybe hellview would be more easily persuaded if you weren't so.... wrong?


Ludwig benefits in 3 distinct ways from having a 1st ballot HOF batting in front of him:

1) Pujols is on base a lot, which affects pitch selection, delivery; pitch quality and defensive alignment.
2) Pujols sees his share of pitcher's very best pitches, which doesn't exactly hurt the batter on deck who can see/time them.
3) Pujols takes pressure off Ludwig who still kinda flies under the radar; there is no telling how Ludwig would respond to being The Man, especially if the team starts losing.


'Line-up protection' can mean several things, in other words.

Adele_H
08-20-2008, 03:15 PM
I don't think RBIs are overrated at all. There are deceptively high RBI totals and deceptively high HR totals and deceptively high batting averages. If you're looking at the quality of a hitter to consider what he might do in the future, RBIs are probably the least important of the major stats, just as batting averages with runners in scoring position, however impressive, don't predict future high batting averages with runners in scoring position.

.


As long as human nature/psychology exists, Clutch will exist.

The problem is that at this point in time, stat-heads still pretty much suck at trying to precisely define & quantify what EXACTLY clutch means and how to appropriate weigh it. Hence the confusion and subsequent backlash in the statisitical community.

As for basic RBI, RISP stats... they don't necessarily have to be predictive at all. The MVP award is given to the most productive/valuable player in a given year, afterall - NOT for the most consistently outstanding career or the most spectacular future.

Hamilton vs. Quentin shapes up to be a good MVP debate. It'll come down to the tie-breaker: Carlos is playing on a winning team, is much better on the Road & is slightly more deadly in "big" situations


.

turners56
08-20-2008, 03:41 PM
Maybe hellview would be more easily persuaded if you weren't so.... wrong?


Ludwig benefits in 3 distinct ways from having a 1st ballot HOF batting in front of him:

1) Pujols is on base a lot, which affects pitch selection, delivery; pitch quality and defensive alignment.
2) Pujols sees his share of pitcher's very best pitches, which doesn't exactly hurt the batter on deck who can see/time them.
3) Pujols takes pressure off Ludwig who still kinda flies under the radar; there is no telling how Ludwig would respond to being The Man, especially if the team starts losing.


'Line-up protection' can mean several things, in other words.

It's Ludwick btw.

1) Runners on base do help, but Pujols is not a stolen base threat, he is not as distracting to a pitcher as say, Ichiro is.
2) So what happens during those times that Ludwick bats 2nd?
3) I would agree with this last point. When Pujols went out in June, Ludwick had his worst month, hitting .228.

TDog
08-20-2008, 03:45 PM
As long as human nature/psychology exists, Clutch will exist.

The problem is that at this point in time, stat-heads still pretty much suck at trying to precisely define & quantify what EXACTLY clutch means and how to appropriate weigh it. Hence the confusion and subsequent backlash in the statisitical community.

As for basic RBI, RISP stats... they don't necessarily have to be predictive at all. The MVP award is given to the most productive/valuable player in a given year, afterall - NOT for the most consistently outstanding career or the most spectacular future.

Hamilton vs. Quentin shapes up to be a good MVP debate. It'll come down to the tie-breaker: Carlos is playing on a winning team, is much better on the Road & is slightly more deadly in "big" situations


.

Considering that Hamilton plays for, at best, a .500 team, I don't think he will get much MVP support at all, unless he is making a serious run at the triple crown, which he is not. There have been players on last place teams to have won the MVP award, but not when players on winning teams had dominant seasons.

The MVP award is all about being the key guy for wins on a winning team. That is why RBIs are so much more impressive after the fact to MVP voters than they do to scouts considering how a player will perform in the future.

Adele_H
08-20-2008, 04:22 PM
1) Runners on base do help, but Pujols is not a stolen base threat, he is not as distracting to a pitcher as say, Ichiro is.

.


A) Pujols on first means more pressure/smaller margin for error for both the pitcher and his fielders - as the price of a HR given up or a defensive miscue has just gone up, so to speak; even an ordinary bouncer through the hole now can result in Pujols motoring all the way into 3rd base, especially with < 2 outs.... And as with anything else, that extra pressure can lead to more mistakes, especially with younger players.
B) A pitcher is less likely to uncork a good breaking pitch in the dirt for fear of it bouncing off the catcher and allowing Pujols to advance... something that obviously isn't a factor when bases are empty.
C) The pitcher is forced to pitch out of the stretch - which is kinda a big deal, because most pitchers do NOT have quite the same deception, control, velocity, or even bite to their pitches out of the stretch as they do working from the wind-up.... That further potentially cuts into a pitcher's effectiveness.
D) 1B has to hold the runner at 1st; middle INF often play DP depth - all of which opens up a bigger hole for Ludwick to exploit.


2) So what happens during those times that Ludwick bats 2nd?

Then he benefits from a more conventional form of line-up protection.


3) I would agree with this last point. When Pujols went out in June, Ludwick had his worst month, hitting .228


Did he? Not surprising.

veeter
09-17-2008, 09:42 PM
Ryan HowardNot looking like a bad pick anymore, is it?

Craig Grebeck
09-17-2008, 09:44 PM
Not looking like a bad pick anymore, is it?
No, it's still pretty terrible. A few hot weeks shouldn't merit MVP.

veeter
09-17-2008, 09:46 PM
No, it's still pretty terrible. A few hot weeks shouldn't merit MVP.I almost spit my beer through my nose. Always succinct you are, Grebeck.

veeter
09-17-2008, 09:48 PM
But, I don't think he drove in 135 runs, in two weeks.

Adele_H
09-17-2008, 11:17 PM
But, I don't think he drove in 135 runs, in two weeks.

Howard is not that bad a choice, especially if Phils make the playoffs.

If Mets are in, then David Wright has to be considered as well.

Can't go wrong with Pujols, though. People who don't understand how MVP can come from a 4th place team, don't understand much about baseball - or life in general. :cool:

Craig Grebeck
09-18-2008, 10:00 AM
But, I don't think he drove in 135 runs, in two weeks.
He's not even in the conversation. Jayson Werth is probably a better choice at this point.

Lundind1
09-18-2008, 10:24 AM
I just think that Ryan Howard is going to win along with the batting title. He has the homerun numbers going away. He will also win it if the Phils end up winning the division going away here in the last few days.

voodoochile
09-18-2008, 11:11 AM
One player has defined MVP in the NL this season. Even with only playing 54 or so games by the end of it. He has lifted a lifeless second place team into a 3.5 game lead while posting a .400 BA with 14 HR, 12 2B, 44 RBI, 30 R and posting a 1.222 OPS in his first 44 games.

Manny Ramirez deserves it...

Edit: If you need more proof, just consider this... If Manny has a hot final week, he might lead the Dodgers in HR for the season...

Eddo144
09-18-2008, 11:55 AM
One player has defined MVP in the NL this season. Even with only playing 54 or so games by the end of it. He has lifted a lifeless second place team into a 3.5 game lead while posting a .400 BA with 14 HR, 12 2B, 44 RBI, 30 R and posting a 1.222 OPS in his first 44 games.

Manny Ramirez deserves it...

Edit: If you need more proof, just consider this... If Manny has a hot final week, he might lead the Dodgers in HR for the season...
Since August 1, 2008 (Ramirez's first game with the Dodgers):

Manny Ramirez (8/1/08 - today):
.400/.485/.738, 14 HR, 44 RBI

Andre Ethier (8/1/08 - today):
.366/.431/.697, 9 HR, 27 RBI

Manny's not the only reason the Dodgers are in first place. Ethier's been tearing it up, too.

For comparison's sake:

Albert Pujols (8/1/08 - today):
.355/.449/.697, 12 HR, 34 RBI

Manny's last two months aren't so much better than Pujols's last two months that they make up for the fact that (a) Pujols's season-long numbers are out-of-this-world and (b) Manny's only been in the national for half of a season.

Pujols is the correct answer to the following question: Who is the NL MVP?

voodoochile
09-18-2008, 12:24 PM
Since August 1, 2008 (Ramirez's first game with the Dodgers):

Manny Ramirez (8/1/08 - today):
.400/.485/.738, 14 HR, 44 RBI

Andre Ethier (8/1/08 - today):
.366/.431/.697, 9 HR, 27 RBI

Manny's not the only reason the Dodgers are in first place. Ethier's been tearing it up, too.

For comparison's sake:

Albert Pujols (8/1/08 - today):
.355/.449/.697, 12 HR, 34 RBI

Manny's last two months aren't so much better than Pujols's last two months that they make up for the fact that (a) Pujols's season-long numbers are out-of-this-world and (b) Manny's only been in the national for half of a season.

Pujols is the correct answer to the following question: Who is the NL MVP?

Okay, how much difference has Pujols made all by himself to the Cardinals making the playoffs?

The question isn't "who's the best player?" It's, "Who's the most valuable player?"

Look at the difference Manny has made for the Dodgers. He's the single biggest reason they have gone from a below .500 second place team to leading the division.

It's not all about the individual stats...

PennStater98r
09-18-2008, 12:39 PM
Okay, how much difference has Pujols made all by himself to the Cardinals making the playoffs?

The question isn't "who's the best player?" It's, "Who's the most valuable player?"

Look at the difference Manny has made for the Dodgers. He's the single biggest reason they have gone from a below .500 second place team to leading the division.

It's not all about the individual stats...

It's not just Manny - they have really had multiple things come together at the same time - kind of like the Cards did for the first half of the season. The difference is that Albert has maintained and the rest of the team has gone to ****. If that bullpen - which has blown over 30 games this year - reduces that by just 1/3rd - heck 1/5th, Albert is the ONLY candidate right now being talked about.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 01:08 PM
Okay, how much difference has Pujols made all by himself to the Cardinals making the playoffs?

How is he responsible for a ****ty pitching staff and a lack of another potent bat in the lineup? He's putting together one of the best offense season in years. His bullpen has been down right terrible all year.

Look at the difference Manny has made for the Dodgers. He's the single biggest reason they have gone from a below .500 second place team to leading the division. Yeeaaaah...it has nothing to do with Arizona being dreadful in September. Yes, the Dodgers beat them in 3 games, but they also got swept by the Giants and dropped 2 in Cincy. In August they swept by the Padres and Atlanta.

Yes, Manny has been great for the Dodgers, but let's also look at how dreadful Arizona has played.

But that's great, let's please elect a 2-month rental who gave up on his team at midseason as the Most Valuable Player in the league because they play in a god-awful division and beat up on the Rockies and Pittsburgh in September. Awesome.

It's called Most Valuable Player but that's a very stupid way to look at the award, because a team gets hot in September and all of a sudden whoever stood out the most gets it? That's stupid. Pujols has been putting up monster numbers all year and nearly single-handedly kept his team afloat in the early part of the season. But that doesn't matter, because LAD got hot so let's give it to Manny. Oh wait, the Mets are choking but the Phillies got sorta hot, so let's give it to Ryan Howard!

daveeym
09-18-2008, 01:17 PM
Okay, how much difference has Pujols made all by himself to the Cardinals making the playoffs?

The question isn't "who's the best player?" It's, "Who's the most valuable player?"

Look at the difference Manny has made for the Dodgers. He's the single biggest reason they have gone from a below .500 second place team to leading the division.

It's not all about the individual stats...

But the only real argument for Manny is just individual stats. The Dodgers were picked by many to win that division and drastically underperformed all year.

They were 54-54 on July 31st, the last day BM (Before Manny) 2 games back. They've gone 25-19 since then to up 3.5. You really think that's enough of a change to say he's the MVP and solely responsible for where the dodgers are? As others have said the Dbacks have as much do with this as anyone. they were just 56-52 on July 31st and have gone 19-24 since. While the dodgers have gone 7-2 against the Dbacks since then the Dbacks have also been swept by San Diego and San Francisco, lost 2 of 3 to the reds and 3 of 4 to the braves.

Getting a bad team to squeak into the playoffs over a worse team doesn't scream MVP to me. Look who both of them have played since July 31st also the dregs of the league. Manny's feasted off the following - 9 AZ 3 STL 3 SF 7 Phi 3 MW 6 CO 3 WA 6 SD 3 PITT (remaining games 1 Pitt 6 San Fran 3 San Diego). Now AZ has played just as crappy teams, but Manny's arguably one of the best hitters in the game and he's feasted on the worst of the worst of the AAAA NL.

If he led them to a 2007 Rockies like second half where they were 54-51 on July 31st and ended 89-73 (going 35-22) then I'd be all over Manny.

Just for comparison the astros were 50-57 BM and were 80 - 67 (30 - 10) before Ike hit and still 80 - 71 (30-14).

While Manny's numbers have been outstanding and he deserves consideration, saying he's solely responsible for the dodgers in the playoffs and some MVP lock is a stretch. You can say he's only changed the outcome of their record by 3-4 games if you figured they'd keep playing .500 ball.

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 01:18 PM
One player has defined MVP in the NL this season. Even with only playing 54 or so games by the end of it. He has lifted a lifeless second place team into a 3.5 game lead while posting a .400 BA with 14 HR, 12 2B, 44 RBI, 30 R and posting a 1.222 OPS in his first 44 games.

Manny Ramirez deserves it...

Manny won't win NL MVP. Not enough games. Not gonna happen.

And last time I checked, it's not 'Most Valuable Player From a Playoff Team Only' Award. I wish MVP voters would get a clue one of these days.

It's one thing when Albert Belle in 1998 padded his stats once it became apparent the Sox weren't gonna contend.... And it's quite another for Pujols to have helped keep his injury-depleted team with not one, not two, but 3 relievers in the starting rotation and no bullpen, in contention beyond point of reason.

If Manny had enough AB as a Dodger, sure give him MVP, but again, he doesn't - nor is Manny likely to keep up that torrid pace over full season.

daveeym
09-18-2008, 01:38 PM
Quick and dirty
Runs Scored Runs Against

7/31 AZ 491 (4.55 p/g) 463(4.29 p/g) +28
9/18 AZ 670 (4.41 p/g) 660(4.29 p/g) +10

7/31 LA 450 (4.17 p/g) 432(3.99 p/g) +19
9/18 LA 650 (4.22 p/g) 608(4.00 p/g) +42

RockyMtnSoxFan
09-18-2008, 01:53 PM
Since August 1, 2008 (Ramirez's first game with the Dodgers):

Manny Ramirez (8/1/08 - today):
.400/.485/.738, 14 HR, 44 RBI

Andre Ethier (8/1/08 - today):
.366/.431/.697, 9 HR, 27 RBI

Manny's not the only reason the Dodgers are in first place. Ethier's been tearing it up, too.

For comparison's sake:

Albert Pujols (8/1/08 - today):
.355/.449/.697, 12 HR, 34 RBI

Manny's last two months aren't so much better than Pujols's last two months that they make up for the fact that (a) Pujols's season-long numbers are out-of-this-world and (b) Manny's only been in the national for half of a season.

Pujols is the correct answer to the following question: Who is the NL MVP?

To add to this argument, as I posted in the NL MVP poll thread (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=105705), the Dodgers haven't been winning more frequently because of Manny, but because of their pitching. They have been getting some really good performances from their pitchers, and even an average offense would have produced enough runs to win most of those games. So the best argument in favor of Manny -- that he has transformed his team and single-handedly given them the division lead -- isn't even true. That would apply more to CC than to Manny.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 02:04 PM
Manny won't win NL MVP. Not enough games. Not gonna happen.

And last time I checked, it's not 'Most Valuable Player From a Playoff Team Only' Award. I wish MVP voters would get a clue one of these days.

.
How can someone be valueable if his team doesn't win?

RockyMtnSoxFan
09-18-2008, 02:18 PM
How can someone be valueable if his team doesn't win?


:?:

So you're saying that nobody that isn't on a first place team contributes? One way to be valuable is to take a team with mediocre talent and a long list of injuries, and put it into the playoff picture for most of the season. True, they won't play in October, but the Cardinals have been in within striking distance of the Cubs almost all season, and if you look at their roster (apart from Pujols) you won't see a single impact type player.

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 02:29 PM
How can someone be valueable if his team doesn't win?

How can someone win a Best Actor award from a movie that wasn't even nominated for Best Picture?

turners56
09-18-2008, 03:06 PM
Okay, how much difference has Pujols made all by himself to the Cardinals making the playoffs?

The question isn't "who's the best player?" It's, "Who's the most valuable player?"

Look at the difference Manny has made for the Dodgers. He's the single biggest reason they have gone from a below .500 second place team to leading the division.

It's not all about the individual stats...

If the D-backs didn't choke like the Cubs, Manny's value wouldn't have meant much of anything.

You can't give a player the MVP for playing 2 months in a league when Pujols has been producing like a monster for an entire season. Without Pujols, the Cardinals might be in last place. Without Manny, the Dodgers were a still a .500 team catching a choking Arizona team. If the Dodgers played in the Central, they'd be in a similar situation with the Cardinals.

DSpivack
09-18-2008, 03:10 PM
For all the talk about how much Manny has meant to the surging Dodgers and how much the Cardinals are struggling, the teams have about identical records.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 03:12 PM
How can someone win a Best Actor award from a movie that wasn't even nominated for Best Picture?
Because he isn't winning the most valueable actor award, he is winning the award for best actor.

RockyMtnSoxFan
09-18-2008, 03:43 PM
Because he isn't winning the most valueable actor award, he is winning the award for best actor.

Guess what? The Dodgers are tied for the sixth best record in the National League. Therefore, by your argument, Manny is not eligible for the MVP.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 03:48 PM
Guess what? The Dodgers are tied for the sixth best record in the National League. Therefore, by your argument, Manny is not eligible for the MVP.
Are they going to the playoffs? By my arguement he is eligible.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 03:50 PM
Are they going to the playoffs? By my arguement he is eligible.

So when did we render the MVP Award the have a hot month on an underachieving team that suddenly comes to life in baseball's worse division??

chisoxfanatic
09-18-2008, 03:55 PM
Are they going to the playoffs? By my arguement he is eligible.
As someone who is involved in education, let me put it this way:

Teacher A teaches gifted students. Those gifted students are always interested in everything Teacher A has to say and always complete every assignment. The gifted students score very high on standardized tests.

Teacher B teaches remedial students in the inner city. The students are ravaged with so many emotional and social issues; however, Teacher B is able to help those students rise above the issues and learn something. These students average test scores rise significantly, though not quite as high as the gifted students previously discussed.

Teacher A would be like Manny Ramirez. He actually has had guys around him that have been able to help out along the way. Manny hasn't had to do everything by himself, like Albert Pujols has had to do almost all season long. You better believe Teacher B would be winning the Golden Apple Award over Teacher A.

turners56
09-18-2008, 03:57 PM
As someone who is involved in education, let me put it this way:

Teacher A teaches gifted students. Those gifted students are always interested in everything Teacher A has to say and always complete every assignment. The gifted students score very high on standardized tests.

Teacher B teaches remedial students in the inner city. The students are ravaged with so many emotional and social issues; however, Teacher B is able to help those students rise above the issues and learn something. These students average test scores rise significantly, though not quite as high as the gifted students previously discussed.

Teacher A would be like Manny Ramirez. He actually has had guys around him that have been able to help out along the way. Manny hasn't had to do everything by himself, like Albert Pujols. You better believe Teacher B would be winning the Golden Apple Award over Teacher A.

I agree with you, but Pujols has Ryan Ludwick and Rick Ankiel around him. They're both very good players. The Cardinals might not have the pitching the Dodgers do, but saying that the Cards don't have talent around Pujols is an exageration.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:02 PM
As someone who is involved in education, let me put it this way:

Teacher A teaches gifted students. Those gifted students are always interested in everything Teacher A has to say and always complete every assignment. The gifted students score very high on standardized tests.

Teacher B teaches remedial students in the inner city. The students are ravaged with so many emotional and social issues; however, Teacher B is able to help those students rise above the issues and learn something. These students average test scores rise significantly, though not quite as high as the gifted students previously discussed.

Teacher A would be like Manny Ramirez. He actually has had guys around him that have been able to help out along the way. Manny hasn't had to do everything by himself, like Albert Pujols has had to do almost all season long. You better believe Teacher B would be winning the Golden Apple Award over Teacher A.
What does that have to do with anything? Your comparing students grades to how valueable a player is to a team? Obviously teacher B is the better teacher. And yes Pujols is the better player. However for this season Manny Ramirez has had a bigger impact on the Dodgers than Pujols with the Cards.

chisoxfanatic
09-18-2008, 04:04 PM
I agree with you, but Pujols has Ryan Ludwick and Rick Ankiel around him. They're both very good players. The Cardinals might not have the pitching the Dodgers do, but saying that the Cards don't have talent around Pujols is an exageration.
Even some of the most trying classrooms can have a few good apples. But, the Dodgers have quite a "supporting cast" for Manny.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 04:04 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Your comparing students grades to how valueable a player is to a team? Obviously teacher B is the better teacher. And yes Pujols is the better player. However for this season Manny Ramirez has had a bigger impact on the Dodgers than Pujols with the Cards.

How can you honestly say that?

Did Manny make Chad Billingsley really, really good?

Did Manny make Ned Colletti get Greg Maddux?

Did Manny finally make Torre realize Andruw Jones should be nowhere near a baseball field?

He just happens to be the best player on a team that has benefited by finally playing up to their level while Arizona has tanked tremendously.

turners56
09-18-2008, 04:05 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Your comparing students grades to how valueable a player is to a team? Obviously teacher B is the better teacher. And yes Pujols is the better player. However for this season Manny Ramirez has had a bigger impact on the Dodgers than Pujols with the Cards.

The Dodgers are 5 games over .500 since Manny has joined them. How is that a HUGE impact?

chisoxfanatic
09-18-2008, 04:05 PM
What does that have to do with anything? Your comparing students grades to how valueable a player is to a team? Obviously teacher B is the better teacher. And yes Pujols is the better player. However for this season Manny Ramirez has had a bigger impact on the Dodgers than Pujols with the Cards.
Have you ever heard of something called an analogy? If it weren't for Pujols, that Cardinal team would probably have been the Seattle Mariners of the NL. It would be a travesty if he didn't get the MVP.

RockyMtnSoxFan
09-18-2008, 04:14 PM
Are they going to the playoffs? By my arguement he is eligible.

They are going to the playoffs because they are in the worst division and because their pitching has been good lately, not because of Manny. If you put the Cardinals in the West, they would be nearly tied with the Dodgers. (In fact, they would probably have a better record, because they would benefit from more games against the Padres and Giants.)

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:15 PM
The Dodgers are 5 games over .500 since Manny has joined them. How is that a HUGE impact?
Are they preparing for the playoffs? There is not one player in the NL that has had a bigger impact on his team being in contention than Manny Ramirez.
Have you ever heard of something called an analogy? If it weren't for Pujols, that Cardinal team would probably have been the Seattle Mariners of the NL. It would be a travesty if he didn't get the MVP.
ANd with Pujols the Cardinals are the Indians.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 04:18 PM
ANd with Pujols the Cardinals are the Indians.

Because one man can lead a baseball team to greatness. Get real. If that were the case the White Sox would have been World Champions in 1995, 1996 and 1997.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:18 PM
They are going to the playoffs because they are in the worst division and because their pitching has been good lately, not because of Manny. If you put the Cardinals in the West, they would be nearly tied with the Dodgers. (In fact, they would probably have a better record, because they would benefit from more games against the Padres and Giants.)
Are they going to the playoffs? They have been a better team since the Manny addition and he has the numbers to back it up.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:21 PM
Because one man can lead a baseball team to greatness. Get real. If that were the case the White Sox would have been World Champions in 1995, 1996 and 1997.
I'd argue if that were the case the Mariners would have been the champions those years.

turners56
09-18-2008, 04:24 PM
Are they preparing for the playoffs? There is not one player in the NL that has had a bigger impact on his team being in contention than Manny Ramirez.

C.C. Sabathia? Hello?

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:28 PM
C.C. Sabathia? Hello?
Imight be wrong but hasn't Milwaukeee been the same maybe worse overall since acquiring CC?

chisoxfanatic
09-18-2008, 04:30 PM
Imight be wrong but hasn't Milwaukeee been the same maybe worse overall since acquiring CC?
That is not CC's fault though. You can blame that on their former manager that just got canned.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:32 PM
I will not consider someone the most valueable player if is team doesn't at least make the playoffs.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 04:33 PM
Imight be wrong but hasn't Milwaukeee been the same maybe worse overall since acquiring CC?

Why is this so hard for you to comphrend?

CC pitches once every 5th day.

When hes done that with Milwaukee thus far he's 9-1 with a 1.82 ERA. He's done more than enough to keep the Brewers afloat once every 5th day.

There is no way ONE player has an all-or-nothing impact on his team. Manny joining the Dodgers didn't instantly make them playoff contenders, it took them beating on some less than stellar NL teams and Arizona tanking. Pujols has put up amazing numbers all year and as I recall didn't quit on a team in midseason so he could get a big money contract in the offseason.

chisoxfanatic
09-18-2008, 04:35 PM
I will not consider someone the most valueable player if is team doesn't at least make the playoffs.
We got that after the first time you said that, not to mention the millionth time! Playoff teams are never just about one guy. They're all about a bunch of members of a team making contributions. How the hell is Pujols supposed to get the Cardinals to the playoffs when he's had virtually NOTHING around him all season long (yes, turners56, I agree Ludwick is a great baseball player too, but that's still very little help for Pujols)!

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:36 PM
A starting pitcher shouldn't win the MVP thats what the Cy Young award is for. I agree that Pujols was the best player this year however how can you justify him as the most valueable if they aren't playing in October?

chisoxfanatic
09-18-2008, 04:40 PM
A starting pitcher shouldn't win the MVP thats what the Cy Young award is for. I agree that Pujols was the best player this year however how can you justify him as the most valueable if they aren't playing in October?
The Dodgers do not have a single member on their team of whom you can say "Oh, the reason the Dodgers are going to the playoffs is because of HIM!" They are there because of contributions from a bunch of different players against ****ty competition.

Meanwhile, with the Cardinals, if it weren't for PUJOLS, they'd be sitting below the Pittsburgh Pirates in the standings! They competed pretty well until September. It's not Albert Pujols' fault he's been one of only two players in St. Louis pulling any sort of weight this season.

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 04:42 PM
Because he isn't winning the most valueable actor award, he is winning the award for best actor.

Are you serious?






.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:43 PM
The Dodgers do not have a single member on their team of whom you can say "Oh, the reason the Dodgers are going to the playoffs is because of HIM!" They are there because of contributions from a bunch of different players against ****ty competition.

Meanwhile, with the Cardinals, if it weren't for PUJOLS, they'd be sitting below the Pittsburgh Pirates in the standings! They competed pretty well until September. It's not Albert Pujols' fault he's been one of only two players in St. Louis pulling any sort of weight this season.
Sure they do, his name is Manny Ramirez.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:44 PM
Are you serious?






.
Best player and most valueable are not the same thing. What is so hard to comprehend?

voodoochile
09-18-2008, 04:47 PM
C.C. Sabathia? Hello?

Right or wrong, pitchers traditionally aren't voted MVP.

chisoxfanatic
09-18-2008, 04:48 PM
Sure they do, his name is Manny Ramirez.
Are you SERIOUS? I'm sure Ethier, Loney, Kemp, Lowe, Billingsley, Maddux, and Kuroda would come and beat your door down then! What a nice supporting cast for Manny to work with!

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 04:48 PM
Obviously teacher B is the better teacher. .

It's not obvious at all. We don't know how teacher A would have done with the inner city group and teacher B - with privileged bunch.

Sox It To Em
09-18-2008, 04:49 PM
A starting pitcher shouldn't win the MVP thats what the Cy Young award is for. I agree that Pujols was the best player this year however how can you justify him as the most valueable if they aren't playing in October?

Because baseball, likely more so than any other sport, is a team game, and winning baseball requires solid contributions from a multitude of players. This means than an individual player's performance, no matter how spectacular, can inevitably be offset by the other guys hitting and, um, all the guys pitching. Even the greatest of players can help their team only so much. I don't understand the logic that a player's value should be assessed by the performances of his teammates.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:50 PM
I think this is more of a anti-Manny feeling than Pro-Pujols. If Frank Thomas went to the Dodgers instead of Manny and did the same thing and the Dodgers made the same surge you all would nominating Thomas as the MVP.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 04:51 PM
Because baseball, likely more so than any other sport, is a team game, and winning baseball requires solid contributions from a multitude of players. This means than an individual player's performance, no matter how spectacular, can inevitably be offset by the other guys hitting and, um, all the guys pitching. Even the greatest of players can help their team only so much. I don't understand the logic that a player's value should be assessed by the performances of his teammates.

NO!! Manny Ramirez who contributes 14% of the total teams at-bats and exactly 0% of the teams pitching is the sole reason his team is now slightly above .500 is baseball's worst division.

I think this is more of a anti-Manny feeling than Pro-Pujols. If Frank Thomas went to the Dodgers instead of Manny and did the same thing and the Dodgers made the same surge you all would nominating Thomas as the MVP.

No, we wouldn't. I want Pujols because he's the best all-around player in the league this year. You can take the name of the award at it's 100% face value like it's 1926, but the fact is Albert Pujols is the best all-around player in the National League on a less-than stellar team in a very good baseball division.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:52 PM
It's not obvious at all. We don't know how teacher A would have done with the inner city group and teacher B - with privileged bunch.
Your looking for a fight thats all. Why waste time on anymore of your useless posts.

chisoxfanatic
09-18-2008, 04:52 PM
I think this is more of a anti-Manny feeling than Pro-Pujols. If Frank Thomas went to the Dodgers instead of Manny and did the same thing and the Dodgers made the same surge you all would nominating Thomas as the MVP.
Well, if that isn't the biggest load of crap posted here at least today! We are NOT bashing Manny; but, instead, we're trying to get our point across that Manny has had it EASY, because he's had so many people actually HELPING HIM OUT and working as a...TEAM! Pujols has had absolutely no help outside of Ryan Ludwick for pretty much this entire season!

And for someone claiming we sound anti-Manny, you're sounding even MORE anti-Pujols! :rolleyes:

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 04:54 PM
There is no way ONE player has an all-or-nothing impact on his team. .

Yep.

Baseball is NOT = basketball, football. In those sports, you can give the ball to Michael Jordan or Tom Brady on every possession theoretically, so if they have a great game, the team wins.

Whereas in baseball, all you do is walk red-hot Barry Bonds 5 times, and get his teammates out to win the game.


.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 04:59 PM
Well, if that isn't the biggest load of crap posted here at least today! We are NOT bashing Manny; but, instead, we're trying to get our point across that Manny has had it EASY, because he's had so many people actually HELPING HIM OUT and working as a...TEAM! Pujols has had absolutely no help outside of Ryan Ludwick for pretty much this entire season!

And for someone claiming we sound anti-Manny, you're sounding even MORE anti-Pujols! :rolleyes:
SO Braden Looper, Adam Wainright, Kyle Lohse and Todd Wellmeyer pitching very good the first 3-4 months had no effect on where the Cards are right now? Ludwick, Ankiel, Schumaker and Glaus haven't done anything in the lineup?

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 05:00 PM
Yep.

Baseball is NOT = basketball, football. In those sports, you can give the ball to Michael Jordan or Tom Brady on every possession theoretically, so if they have a great game, the team wins.

Whereas in baseball, all you do is walk red-hot Barry Bonds 5 times, and get his teammates out to win the game.


.

Exactly. Tom Brady has his hand on 100% of the Patriots offensive possessions.

LeBron James has his hand on about 90% of Cavaliers offensive possessions.

Manny Ramirez takes part in 14% of his teams at-bats.

You cannot attribute team success to ONE single player in baseball. It's illogical.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:00 PM
And for someone claiming we sound anti-Manny, you're sounding even MORE anti-Pujols! :rolleyes:
I've said a number of times in this thread alone Pujols was the best player this year, that doesn't make him most valueable.

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 05:01 PM
I think this is more of a anti-Manny feeling than Pro-Pujols. If Frank Thomas went to the Dodgers instead of Manny and did the same thing and the Dodgers made the same surge you all would nominating Thomas as the MVP.

Not for a 50 game sample size. Otherwise, Rich Harden should be NL Cy Young.

Manny is putting up similar numbers as semi-slumping Pujols.

But Pujols is a good fielder at 1B, while Manny is widely regarded as the worst defensive regular in the game.

Advantage: Pujols.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:02 PM
Yep.

Baseball is NOT = basketball, football. In those sports, you can give the ball to Michael Jordan or Tom Brady on every possession theoretically, so if they have a great game, the team wins.

Whereas in baseball, all you do is walk red-hot Barry Bonds 5 times, and get his teammates out to win the game.


.
Football is the biggest team sport out there. The best player in his era and possibly best RB ever was Barry Sanders. He dominated like nobody before or after how many titles did he win? Actually forget titles how many wins did he have compared to other legendary players?

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:04 PM
Not for a 50 game sample size. Otherwise, Rich Harden should be NL Cy Young.

Manny is putting up similar numbers as semi-slumping Pujols.

But Pujols is a good fielder at 1B, while Manny is widely regarded as the worst defensive regular in the game.

Advantage: Pujols.
Batting .400 with 14 hrs and 45 RBI's is a semi slumping Pujols? What the hell are you talking about?

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 05:06 PM
Exactly. Tom Brady has his hand on 100% of the Patriots offensive possessions.

LeBron James has his hand on about 90% of Cavaliers offensive possessions.

Manny Ramirez takes part in 14% of his teams at-bats.

You cannot attribute team success to ONE single player in baseball. It's illogical.

That's also why World Series title is arguably more "special" than NBA championship or Stanley Cup.

Element of playoff unpredictability is bigger in baseball (in its Post-1994 incarnation) than in most team sports.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:08 PM
That's also why World Series title is arguably more "special" than NBA championship or Stanley Cup.

Element of unpredictability is bigger in baseball (in its Post-1994 incarnation) than in most team sports.
Are you high? The site of the Hawks circling the ice with the cup would be more unbelievable than when we saw the Sox with the World Series Trophy.

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 05:08 PM
Batting .400 with 14 hrs and 45 RBI's is a semi slumping Pujols? What the hell are you talking about?

What are YOU talking about? Above aren't Pujols numbers.

Pujols is 4 for his last 25, slightly hurting overall numbers.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:10 PM
What are YOU talking about? Above aren't Pujols numbers.

Pujols is 4 for his last 25, slightly hurting overall numbers.
You said Manny is putting up numbers similar to a slightly slumping Pujols.

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 05:11 PM
Are you high? The site of the Hawks circling the ice with the cup would be more unbelievable than when we saw the Sox with the World Series Trophy.

A) No, it wouldn't be. Not many care about hockey anymore.

B) I was speaking generally. It's easier to have a mini-dynasty (ask Red Wings, Devils, Avalanche from last decade alone) in hockey than it is to have one in modern baseball.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:13 PM
A) No, it wouldn't be. Not many care about hockey anymore.

B) I was speaking generally. It's easier to have a mini-dynasty (ask Red Wings, Devils, Avalanche from last decade alone) in hockey than it is to have one in modern baseball.
Thats because those teams drafted/acquired quality players and kept them. You draft well and make smart trades and signings and in any sport you can have a dynasty.

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 05:14 PM
You said Manny is putting up numbers similar to a slightly slumping Pujols.

He is. Their OPS is very similar even though Pujols is slumping (no coincidence Cards have lost 5 in a row during his slump).

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 05:16 PM
Why waste time on anymore of your useless posts.

Then don't if my posts are so useless.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:16 PM
He is. Their OPS is very similar even though Pujols is slumping (no coincidence Cards have lost 5 in a row during his slump).
SO OPS is the only stat?

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:17 PM
Then don't if my posts are so useless.
I have to your preventing me from going on tilt in the poker room.:smile:

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 05:20 PM
SO OPS is the only stat?

They are really not comparable at this time because Manny still does not have anywhere near a proper sample size. But that won't stop us from freaking out and proclaiming him the best player in the league while his under-achieving team finally topped the dreadful Arizona Diamondbacks in baseball's worst division by beating up on the Pirates and Padres.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:21 PM
They are really not comparable at this time because Manny still does not have anywhere near a proper sample size. But that won't stop us from freaking out and proclaiming him the best player in the league while his under-achieving team finally topped the dreadful Arizona Diamondbacks in baseball's worst division by beating up on the Pirates and Padres.
WHen did I ever say Manny was the best player in the league?

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 05:27 PM
WHen did I ever say Manny was the best player in the league?

I'm sorry it's 1926.


They are really not comparable at this time because Manny still does not have anywhere near a proper sample size. But that won't stop us from freaking out and proclaiming him the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER in the league while his under-achieving team finally topped the dreadful Arizona Diamondbacks in baseball's worst division by beating up on the Pirates and Padres, due to many differing reasons that are somehow correlated directly to Manny Ramirez who has absolutely no control on his pitching staff, but yet somehow gets credit for it, because we're looking at the MVP race through a ridiculous black-white, syllogism that I thought we got past after 1600:

Manny arrives in Los Angeles;
Los Angeles gets into playoff contention;
Manny got LA into playoff contention

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:28 PM
I'm sorry it's 1926.


They are really not comparable at this time because Manny still does not have anywhere near a proper sample size. But that won't stop us from freaking out and proclaiming him the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER in the league while his under-achieving team finally topped the dreadful Arizona Diamondbacks in baseball's worst division by beating up on the Pirates and Padres, due to many differing reasons that are somehow correlated directly to Manny Ramirez who has absolutely no control on his pitching staff, but yet somehow gets credit for it.
Yes I will proclaim Manny has had a bigger impact on his team winning than any other player.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 05:36 PM
yes i will proclaim manny has had a bigger impact on his team winning than any other player.

25-19.

Legendary run!

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:40 PM
25-19.

Legendary run!
Thats a 100 win season with that pace in a 162 game season.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 05:46 PM
Thats a 100 win season with that pace in a 162 game season.

Actually it's a 92 win season, but who needs facts.

What we need is really, really small sample sizes!!

Arizona's first 44 games, 27-17... they are going to win 99 games!!1!!1!!

DSpivack
09-18-2008, 05:47 PM
Thats a 100 win season with that pace in a 162 game season.

I still don't see how you can say a guy is the MVP of the league when he'll play in maybe 1/3 of his team's games in that season.

My pick is Pujols, but I'd put Ryan Howard ahead of Manny.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 05:53 PM
I still don't see how you can say a guy is the MVP of the league when he'll play in maybe 1/3 of his team's games in that season.

My pick is Pujols, but I'd put Ryan Howard ahead of Manny.
When I look at the MVP which would be hurt more by the loss of a player. Nobody on the Cubs fits this description. Same with Milwaukee as good as CC has been. Mets and Phils have a few options each and because of that they negate each other. If you take Manny away from the Dodgers they are not in the playoffs and fighting for a title, you take Pujols away from St. Louis it doesn't impact their title dreams because they don't have one either way. Its not best best player its most valueable.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 05:57 PM
When I look at the MVP which would be hurt more by the loss of a player. Nobody on the Cubs fits this description. Same with Milwaukee as good as CC has been. Mets and Phils have a few options each and because of that they negate each other. If you take Manny away from the Dodgers they are not in the playoffs and fighting for a title, you take Pujols away from St. Louis it doesn't impact their title dreams because they don't have one either way. Its not best best player its most valueable.

Unfortunately now we have divisions in baseball, unlike we did when the "Most Valuable Player" wording was made.

But hey, let's take it back to 1929 like you so badly want to.

Manny has gotten his team into the playoffs great. But WAIT, it's 1929, there are no divisions. We bring the top teams into the World Series. The Dodgers are now tied for 5th best and not in the playoffs. Thus, he isn't valuable, he's just another guy on a close-but not close enough team. That's when MVP made a lot of sense. Now we're turning the MVP award into "Who can benefit from getting hot in September and get into the playoffs regardless of their division."

Well let's put the Dodgers in another division anywhere else in baseball today.

AL East: 5th Place
AL Central: 3rd Place
AL West: 2nd Place

NL East: 3rd Place
NL Central: 4th Place

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 06:01 PM
Unfortunately now we have divisions in baseball, unlike we did when the "Most Valuable Player" wording was made.

But hey, let's take it back to 1929 like you so badly want to.

Manny has gotten his team into the playoffs great. But WAIT, it's 1929, there are no divisions. We bring the top teams into the World Series. The Dodgers are now tied for 5th best and not in the playoffs. Thus, he isn't valuable, he's just another guy on a close-but not close enough team. That's when MVP made a lot of sense. Now we're turning the MVP award into "Who can benefit from getting hot in September and get into the playoffs regardless of their division."

Well let's put the Dodgers in another division anywhere else in baseball today.

AL East: 5th Place
AL Central: 3rd Place
AL West: 2nd Place

NL East: 3rd Place
NL Central: 4th Place
It doesn't matter how you get in as long as you get in.

DSpivack
09-18-2008, 06:04 PM
When I look at the MVP which would be hurt more by the loss of a player. Nobody on the Cubs fits this description. Same with Milwaukee as good as CC has been. Mets and Phils have a few options each and because of that they negate each other. If you take Manny away from the Dodgers they are not in the playoffs and fighting for a title, you take Pujols away from St. Louis it doesn't impact their title dreams because they don't have one either way. Its not best best player its most valueable.

You're arguing for a true "most valuable" player, i.e. the one that is worth most wins to his team. Win shares does exist as a stat, but I don't really believe in it nor care what the numbers are behind it. That said, the Cardinals and the Dodgers have about the same record. Manny has played in 45 games for the Dodgers, Pujols a whole season for the Cardinals. How can you see Pujols is not more valuable to his team? I'd argue they'd be worse off without him than the Dodgers without Ramirez. Without Manny, the Dodgers were still competitive in a weak division. No hitter in baseball is having a better season than is Albert. You put Pujols on the Dodgers for a whole season instead of Manny for 45, and I guarantee you Los Angeles has a much better year and a bigger lead over Arizona.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 06:04 PM
It doesn't matter how you get in as long as you get in.

Back, back, backtrack.

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 06:07 PM
You're arguing for a true "most valuable" player, i.e. the one that is worth most wins to his team. Win shares does exist as a stat, but I don't really believe in it nor care what the numbers are behind it. That said, the Cardinals and the Dodgers have about the same record. Manny has played in 45 games for the Dodgers, Pujols a whole season for the Cardinals. How can you see Pujols is not more valuable to his team? I'd argue they'd be worse off without him than the Dodgers without Ramirez. Without Manny, the Dodgers were still competitive in a weak division. No hitter in baseball is having a better season than is Albert. You put Pujols on the Dodgers for a whole season instead of Manny for 45, and I guarantee you Los Angeles has a much better year and a bigger lead over Arizona.
MVP cannot be awarded to a player on a 4th place team, i'm sorry. The fact Andre Dawson and Alex Rodriguez won it on last place teams is a joke.

DSpivack
09-18-2008, 06:08 PM
MVP cannot be awarded to a player on a 4th place team, i'm sorry. The fact Andre Dawson and Alex Rodriguez won it on last place teams is a joke.

So you are saying that the Dodgers are better off having Manny Ramirez for 50 games than Albert Pujols for a whole season??

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 06:09 PM
So you are saying that the Dodgers are better off having Manny Ramirez for 50 games than Albert Pujols for a whole season??
Never said that. However for this season Manny has been more valueable to the DOdgers than Pujols to the Cardinals.

DSpivack
09-18-2008, 06:13 PM
Never said that. However for this season Manny has been more valueable to the DOdgers than Pujols to the Cardinals.

How can you possibly say that?

A: 137 games, 33 HRs, 100 RBIs
B: 44 games, 14 HRs, 44 RBIs

How in the heck is player B more valuable?

getonbckthr
09-18-2008, 06:15 PM
How can you possibly say that?

A: 137 games, 33 HRs, 100 RBIs
B: 44 games, 14 HRs, 44 RBIs

How in the heck is player B more valuable?
Because player B is in the playoffs, player A is not. Not that it means anything here but but based on Manny's pace if they played the same amount of games Manny would be smoking Pujols away.

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 06:41 PM
based on Manny's pace if they played the same amount of games Manny would be smoking Pujols away.



y:hawko

Your what hurts?




.

DSpivack
09-18-2008, 06:44 PM
Because player B is in the playoffs, player A is not. Not that it means anything here but but based on Manny's pace if they played the same amount of games Manny would be smoking Pujols away.

And if Manny had that over a whole season it'd possibly be the best offensive season ever, that's what you get with a small sample size.

The Cardinals and the Dodgers have nearly identical records. So it's Pujols fault that his team isn't better and that they don't play in the West? He's hitting .350, getting on base nearly half the time, he's the best player in the game having one of his best seasons. He'll get the MVP and deserve it.

chisoxfanatic
09-18-2008, 08:21 PM
Because player B is in the playoffs, player A is not. Not that it means anything here but but based on Manny's pace if they played the same amount of games Manny would be smoking Pujols away.
Manny wouldn't ever be able to shoulder the burden of an entire team like Pujols has done all season long. Manny's never had to shoulder the burden of an entire team, because he's never been on a team dealing with tons of injury problems, and he's always been surrounded by all stars in his entire career. He's had it VERY cushy his entire career.

If you put Manny in Albert Pujols' shoes, the Cardinals wouldn't have contended until September! With the burden that was placed on Pujols due to all of the injuries this year (most injured team in baseball), Pujols took it like a man, played on, and still has had outstanding numbers. Meanwhile, Manny in the same situation would've pouted, whined, and would've told his manager he couldn't play due to "being hurt." He's not a team-first guy. He's a me-first guy.

When you pick the MVP, you have to select the one player who "sticks out" more than any other player. That player is Albert Pujols.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 09:44 PM
When you pick the MVP, you have to select the one player who "sticks out" more than any other player. That player is Albert Pujols.

That's how I've traditionally looked at it. Who has stuck out more than their peers. I don't really care if you're on a playoff team or not, as long as you're not on the Nationals if you're putting up amazing offensive numbers you should be rewarded for it.

There is no way to stat-pad in baseball, in the NBA you can be on a last place team and drop 35 a game because you're the only option. MLB there is no way Albert Pujols says in early September "well this team sucks, time to start actually hitting the ball"...

voodoochile
09-18-2008, 10:07 PM
25-19.

Legendary run!

That's 91 wins over the course of a season.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 10:14 PM
That's 91 wins over the course of a season.

Yes. But two things.

Sample size. As I showed it is misleading. Arizona started out in their first 44 games to hit 99 wins, now they'll be lucky to get 80.

To say the Dodgers would keep up that pace all year is very hasty and you're assuming a lot.

Also 91/92 wins wins you exactly 2 divisions this year NL East possibly and the NL West.

DSpivack
09-18-2008, 10:22 PM
Yes. But two things.

Sample size. As I showed it is misleading. Arizona started out in their first 44 games to hit 99 wins, now they'll be lucky to get 80.

To say the Dodgers would keep up that pace all year is very hasty and you're assuming a lot.

Also 91/92 wins wins you exactly 2 divisions this year NL East possibly and the NL West.

And possibly the AL Central.

FedEx227
09-18-2008, 10:24 PM
Well no, the Sox are sweeping the rest of the season, stupid.

Lefty34
09-18-2008, 11:01 PM
That's 91 wins over the course of a season.


The White SOX are 1-3 in their last 3! That's a 54-108 season!

Adele_H
09-18-2008, 11:27 PM
Ok I am convinced. Manny is NL MVP.

And Rich Harden is NL Cy Young.

Cy Young himself clearly would have wanted the award in his name to be given to the "most valuaeble" & efficient pitcher from the best team in the league.

Cubs are something like + 15 since he was acquired couple of months ago, including hellacious p8wnage of the team that was on their heels at the time of the Harden trade - the Brewers - in the process almost quadrupling its lead in the division.


.

DSpivack
09-19-2008, 07:00 AM
Manny: I'd vote Pujols MVP (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgersfyi18-2008sep18,0,954302.story).

Adele_H
09-19-2008, 09:04 AM
Manny: I'd vote Pujols MVP (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgersfyi18-2008sep18,0,954302.story).


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_01/homerL0510_228x299.jpg

"Mmmm, Manny... dreadlocked and faux-modest... Is there anything he can't do?"





Pujols can have his fancy, meaningless hardware and go choke on it. Manny will always be the people's champ, err I mean, the people's MVP.:(::whiner:


.

hellview
09-19-2008, 09:47 AM
Pujols can have his fancy, meaningless hardware and go choke on it. Manny will always be the people's champ, err I mean, the people's MVP.:(::whiner:

What?!?!

JorgeFabregas
09-19-2008, 09:49 AM
Manny realigned the Dodgers to play in the NL West.

Lefty34
09-19-2008, 10:50 AM
Manny realigned the Dodgers to play in the NL West.

You're right, it was Manny Ramirez that put the Dodgers into the playoffs. It was either Manny and the Dreads of Intagibles or some of the other Dodger payers (you know, that team on which he has only played 45 games) playing absolutely out of their minds in the second half.

James Loney has a line of .330/.371/.468 in August. Jeff Kent , all 40 years of him, in August: .343/.380/.422. Also in August, Andre Ethier has a line of .292/.346/.615(!).

Manny is having a good run with the Dodgers as well, but you can't honestly believe that he is responsible for the absolute tear the above players have been on, and no one can believe that Manny had anything to do with those hot streaks helping their team win and secure a playoff spot.

What's that you say? You still believe that Manny is responsible for the Dodgers winning? Then how about this: the Dodgers starting pitching has amassed a 1.245 WHIP in the second half. Did Manny have something to do with that? Manny didn't "energize" this team or "put them over the top", all he did was bring a massive amount of attention to a team that was going to make a run for the Divisional Title anyways, that's it, and that plus his batting line with the Dodgers (THROUGH 45 GAMES!) should not be qualifications of an MVP candidate. And btw, does anyone remember earlier in the season when he was playing "hurt" *cough cough*, shoving front-office people and all-but phoning in every game he played in? No matter what league he did that in, does that deserve even one MVP vote? The answer is no, IMO.

voodoochile
09-19-2008, 10:57 AM
You're right, it was Manny Ramirez that put the Dodgers into the playoffs. It was either Manny and the Dreads of Intagibles or some of the other Dodger payers (you know, that team on which he has only played 45 games) playing absolutely out of their minds in the second half.

James Loney has a line of .330/.371/.468 in August. Jeff Kent , all 40 years of him, in August: .343/.380/.422. Also in August, Andre Ethier has a line of .292/.346/.615(!).

Manny is having a good run with the Dodgers as well, but you can't honestly believe that he is responsible for the absolute tear the above players have been on, and no one can believe that Manny had anything to do with those hot streaks helping their team win and secure a playoff spot.

What's that you say? You still believe that Manny is responsible for the Dodgers winning? Then how about this: the Dodgers starting pitching has amassed a 1.245 WHIP in the second half. Did Manny have something to do with that? Manny didn't "energize" this team or "put them over the top", all he did was bring a massive amount of attention to a team that was going to make a run for the Divisional Title anyways, that's it, and that plus his batting line with the Dodgers (THROUGH 45 GAMES!) should not be qualifications of an MVP candidate. And btw, does anyone remember earlier in the season when he was playing "hurt" *cough cough*, shoving front-office people and all-but phoning in every game he played in? No matter what league he did that in, does that deserve even one MVP vote? The answer is no, IMO.

Maybe the other players are getting better pitches to hit now that there's a monster bat to protect them... It's been known to happen.

I mean pitch to Jeff Kent or Pitch to Manny Ramirez? :dunno:

You used to see this all the time when Frank was healthy. One big bat can make a major change in the way other teams pitch to the rest of the team.

Edit: Oh and last night's box score shows Ethier hitting 2nd and Manny hitting third. That would definitely make a difference in the pitches he sees. Looney batted 5th (less room on the bases, more AB in the first inning). Kent didn't play. I have no idea where he usually hits.

Lefty34
09-19-2008, 11:38 AM
Maybe the other players are getting better pitches to hit now that there's a monster bat to protect them... It's been known to happen.

I mean pitch to Jeff Kent or Pitch to Manny Ramirez? :dunno:

You used to see this all the time when Frank was healthy. One big bat can make a major change in the way other teams pitch to the rest of the team.

Edit: Oh and last night's box score shows Ethier hitting 2nd and Manny hitting third. That would definitely make a difference in the pitches he sees. Looney batted 5th (less room on the bases, more AB in the first inning). Kent didn't play. I have no idea where he usually hits.

Protection does not exist. (http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2004/09/the-protection-externality-it-doesnt-exist/) Time and time again, people like Bill James and the guys at BP have looked at reams of data and shown that protection, while an interesting concept, simply does not exist, or is not statistically relevant. Besides, it is really hard to believe that Manny Ramirez being in the on deck circle "protected" Ethier (358 PA in the 2-hole), or anyone else for that matter, to his line in August.

getonbckthr
09-19-2008, 11:47 AM
Ok I am convinced. Manny is NL MVP.

And Rich Harden is NL Cy Young.

Cy Young himself clearly would have wanted the award in his name to be given to the "most valuaeble" & efficient pitcher from the best team in the league.

Cubs are something like + 15 since he was acquired couple of months ago, including hellacious p8wnage of the team that was on their heels at the time of the Harden trade - the Brewers - in the process almost quadrupling its lead in the division.


.
Cy Young goes to the best pitcher not the most valueable pitcher.

Lukin13
09-19-2008, 12:56 PM
This is real easy in my eyes:

Lance Berkman

He is easily the most valuable player to any one team in the NL.

I don't buy the "must play on a contender" thinking, but he also is on a team in the WC race.

Take Berkman off the 'stros and they finish behind the Pirates in the Central.

D. TODD
09-19-2008, 01:00 PM
This is real easy in my eyes:

Lance Berkman

He is easily the most valuable player to any one team in the NL.

I don't buy the "must play on a contender" thinking, but he also is on a team in the WC race.

Take Berkman off the 'stros and they finish behind the Pirates in the Central.
"Phat Albert" is my clear pick. Puljols is the best player, and he held up his team for most of the season keeping them within within striking distance.

voodoochile
09-19-2008, 01:16 PM
Protection does not exist. (http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2004/09/the-protection-externality-it-doesnt-exist/) Time and time again, people like Bill James and the guys at BP have looked at reams of data and shown that protection, while an interesting concept, simply does not exist, or is not statistically relevant. Besides, it is really hard to believe that Manny Ramirez being in the on deck circle "protected" Ethier (358 PA in the 2-hole), or anyone else for that matter, to his line in August.

If by time and time again you mean 3 times with one of them consisting of a sample size of 1 protectee, one with a sample size of 25 batters over a single season and one link to an article that isn't there (though it claims to have similar methodology to the 25 batter study done) then I guess that proves your point. I don't accept that as being scientifically valid though and would want to see much larger studies done across baseball history before I'd be willing to accept something which most people can see with their own eyes. I'd certainly want to see studies done that were double blind where names were omitted and the person doing the study had no agenda to push.

Basically, I'm not buying what you are selling at the moment unless you have a much larger sample size and extend the study over several years. There might be many reasons why a guy's average/OBP/SLG would change over the course of a single season regardlss of who bats behind them. Also, protection by itself isn't always about one hitter, sometimes it's about where you bat (8th place in the NL and 9th place in the AL come immediately to mind). Are you going to argue that 8th place hitters in the NL don't receive an inordinant amount of IBB compared to their respective ability to hit? I think that of and by itself would prove protection matters...

Craig Grebeck
09-19-2008, 01:23 PM
I really don't understand the arbitrary notion that a player must take his team to the postseason to win MVP. Absolute nonsense. How on earth could the best player in a given year not be the most valuable?

daveeym
09-19-2008, 01:28 PM
This is real easy in my eyes:

Lance Berkman

He is easily the most valuable player to any one team in the NL.

I don't buy the "must play on a contender" thinking, but he also is on a team in the WC race.

Take Berkman off the 'stros and they finish behind the Pirates in the Central.Eh they're 1 game up on Pujols, er I mean the Cardinals. Pujols and Berkman are in the same boat. If either of their teams made the playoffs they'd be a lock. Since no playoff team has really had a standout for other than short bursts or they have multiple "MVPs" I have got to give it to Pujols over Berkman for having the better season.

daveeym
09-19-2008, 01:32 PM
I really don't understand the arbitrary notion that a player must take his team to the postseason to win MVP. Absolute nonsense. How on earth could the best player in a given year not be the most valuable?I don't like the idea that a good month or less makes an MVP. I'd prefer my MVP to be in the playoffs but it's not a necessity. The best player on a stacked team going to the playoffs better have a monster season and be far outpacing the 6 other all stars on his team and the league to earn my vote especially if someone is having a Pujol's type year on another team.

btrain929
09-19-2008, 01:37 PM
Have any of you guys listened to the Score today or lately? Everyone is seriously petitioning for Geovanny Soto as MVP of the entire NL. Are they high? He doesn't even have the best stats on the team (Aramis does). MVP of the team? Maybe. ROY? Probably. MVP of the NL? Get real. If the day comes where the NL MVP has numbers of .285/23/86, I'll run out in traffic blindfolded.

voodoochile
09-19-2008, 01:38 PM
I don't like the idea that a good month or less makes an MVP. I'd prefer my MVP to be in the playoffs but it's not a necessity. The best player on a stacked team going to the playoffs better have a monster season and be far outpacing the 6 other all stars on his team and the league to earn my vote especially if someone is having a Pujol's type year on another team.

Just to be clear, I mostly agree. I don't really think Manny should be the NL MVP. I was trying to stir up some debate and it seems to have worked.:tongue:

I think if you define MVP as the guy who did the most to cause his team to be successful and define success as making the playoffs, then a case can be made for Manny. He'll end up playing close to 1/3 of a season in the NL. What's the cutoff for eligibility? 1/2 season? 2/3? 3/4? Do you have to start the season and finish the season in a single league?

voodoochile
09-19-2008, 01:40 PM
I really don't understand the arbitrary notion that a player must take his team to the postseason to win MVP. Absolute nonsense. How on earth could the best player in a given year not be the most valuable?

*cough* Andre Dawson *cough* With him the flubbies finished last. Without him they still finish last. He still won the award, but how valuable is any guy on a last place team?

DSpivack
09-19-2008, 01:45 PM
*cough* Andre Dawson *cough* With him the flubbies finished last. Without him they still finish last. He still won the award, but how valuable is any guy on a last place team?

Ernie Banks, too, no?

Craig Grebeck
09-19-2008, 01:49 PM
*cough* Andre Dawson *cough* With him the flubbies finished last. Without him they still finish last. He still won the award, but how valuable is any guy on a last place team?
Extremely valuable. It is an award given to one player -- not a team. The recipient should only be judged on his contributions, not the team's w/l record.

daveeym
09-19-2008, 01:50 PM
Just to be clear, I mostly agree. I don't really think Manny should be the NL MVP. I was trying to stir up some debate and it seems to have worked.:tongue:

I think if you define MVP as the guy who did the most to cause his team to be successful and define success as making the playoffs, then a case can be made for Manny. He'll end up playing close to 1/3 of a season in the NL. What's the cutoff for eligibility? 1/2 season? 2/3? 3/4? Do you have to start the season and finish the season in a single league?

The best I could find is this

Each voter ranks 10 players from each league, their only guidelines being that all players are eligible and that the MVP is the player that is most valuable to his team.

I could not find what the eligibility rules were and an article on ROY voting said they abide by the eligibility rules set by MLB.

daveeym
09-19-2008, 01:52 PM
*cough* Andre Dawson *cough* With him the flubbies finished last. Without him they still finish last. He still won the award, but how valuable is any guy on a last place team?You do have to take in to consideration the competition though. Not that I can remember if someone else got jobbed, but if no one else really stood out in the league the value of someone having a year like Dawson's on a last place team goes up by default.

Edit: voting results (http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1987.shtml)

Edit 2: That year the STL and SF made the playoffs. The cardinals (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/STL/1987.shtml) were stacked with a bunch of above average speedsters and didn't have any major standout. The Giants had Will Clark (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SFG/1987.shtml) as their standout but Dawson's season really crushed his.

Edit 3: That year the sox sucked and finished in 5th and almost the entire current coaching staff (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/1987.shtml) and GM were each starters in the lineup.

Eddo144
09-19-2008, 02:34 PM
You do have to take in to consideration the competition though. Not that I can remember if someone else got jobbed, but if no one else really stood out in the league the value of someone having a year like Dawson's on a last place team goes up by default.

Edit: voting results (http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1987.shtml)

Edit 2: That year the STL and SF made the playoffs. The cardinals (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/STL/1987.shtml) were stacked with a bunch of above average speedsters and didn't have any major standout. The Giants had Will Clark (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SFG/1987.shtml) as their standout but Dawson's season really crushed his.

Edit 3: That year the sox sucked and finished in 5th and almost the entire current coaching staff (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/1987.shtml) and GM were each starters in the lineup.
This is going off on a tangent, yes, but 1987 was a weird year for MVPs.

I'll omit the player names.

NL:
Player A (1B): .286/.459/.597, 35 HR, 106 RBI, 309 outs
Player B (RF): .287/.328/.568, 49 HR, 137 RBI, 463 outs

I'd go with Player A, who made 154 fewer outs and got on base 13.1% more. Those two figures more than make up for a 14-HR gap. Player A is Jack Clark, who played for the first-place Cardinals. Player B is Andre Dawson, who played for the last-place Cubs.

AL:
Player C (LF): .308/.352/.605, 47 HR, 135 RBI, 449 outs
Player D (SS): .343/.402/.551, 28 HR, 105 RBI, 413 outs

In the AL, I think it's pretty clear that Player D had a better year. He got on base 5% of the time more, out of the shortstop position. His team made the playoffs. Player C is George Bell, who played for the second-place Blue Jays. Player D is Alan Trammel, who played for the first-place Tigers.

Of course, Dawson and Bell won the MVP awards.

D. TODD
09-19-2008, 02:51 PM
*cough* Andre Dawson *cough* With him the flubbies finished last. Without him they still finish last. He still won the award, but how valuable is any guy on a last place team? I recall that year and the Sporting News chose Ozzie Smith instead of Dawson stating that the Cubs came in last place and surely the Cubs could have done that without "the Hawk". Even with that valid argument Dawson was far and away the superior player in the NL that year and "the wizard" getting the mvp over him would have been an injustice.

I think the only other time a last place team had a mvp was also the cubbies, with Ernie Banks winning it.

Lefty34
09-19-2008, 03:05 PM
If by time and time again you mean 3 times with one of them consisting of a sample size of 1 protectee, one with a sample size of 25 batters over a single season and one link to an article that isn't there (though it claims to have similar methodology to the 25 batter study done) then I guess that proves your point. I don't accept that as being scientifically valid though and would want to see much larger studies done across baseball history before I'd be willing to accept something which most people can see with their own eyes. I'd certainly want to see studies done that were double blind where names were omitted and the person doing the study had no agenda to push.

Basically, I'm not buying what you are selling at the moment unless you have a much larger sample size and extend the study over several years. There might be many reasons why a guy's average/OBP/SLG would change over the course of a single season regardlss of who bats behind them. Also, protection by itself isn't always about one hitter, sometimes it's about where you bat (8th place in the NL and 9th place in the AL come immediately to mind). Are you going to argue that 8th place hitters in the NL don't receive an inordinant amount of IBB compared to their respective ability to hit? I think that of and by itself would prove protection matters...

http://www.amazon.com/Baseball-Between-Numbers-Everything-About/dp/0465005969

Buy it, read it, learn that protection does not exist.

And no, I'm not going to argue that they do not get a lot of IBB's to get to the pitcher spot, but that's not protection, is it? Your point (from what I can gather) is that the presence of Manny Ramirez in the on-deck circle forced more fastballs/pitches-over-the-plate to be thrown to Andre Ethier, and that caused a spike in his numbers. That is not at all related to an IBB to get to the pitcher's spot in the order, and that act is certainly not protection.

And just because people can or think they can see something with their eyes doesn't make it correct. And it certainly doesn't grant that "something" as a gold-standard which others must disprove before making any real headway. Again, protection, while a good idea that makes people feel all good about baseball on the inside, simply does not exist. Read the aforementioned book, and Bill James has some good books out there, too.

turners56
09-19-2008, 03:10 PM
Protection does not exist. (http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2004/09/the-protection-externality-it-doesnt-exist/) Time and time again, people like Bill James and the guys at BP have looked at reams of data and shown that protection, while an interesting concept, simply does not exist, or is not statistically relevant. Besides, it is really hard to believe that Manny Ramirez being in the on deck circle "protected" Ethier (358 PA in the 2-hole), or anyone else for that matter, to his line in August.

Protection does exist...

If you're a pitcher and you're intimidated by the batter on deck, you will more likely give in to the batter before him. It's a psychological thing.

Some may benefit, some may not. It's like why some players perform well in the clutch or doesn't. Not everybody acts the same. There is no single trend that will qualify everything that goes on in baseball. That is where sabermetrics lack. Sabermetrics tends to think that everything is a machine and does the same exact thing in every single at bat and in every single inning pitched.

Lefty34
09-19-2008, 03:29 PM
Protection does exist...

If you're a pitcher and you're intimidated by the batter on deck, you will more likely give in to the batter before him. It's a psychological thing.

Some may benefit, some may not. It's like why some players perform well in the clutch or doesn't. Not everybody acts the same. There is no single trend that will qualify everything that goes on in baseball. That is where sabermetrics lack. Sabermetrics tends to think that everything is a machine and does the same exact thing in every single at bat and in every single inning pitched.

So to you, protection might or might not exist to some pitchers, and those pitchers might or might not want to throw more fastballs to someone? That is far from existence. What some people lack is the ability to differentiate good fuzzy-feeling ideas from things that actually exist. I'm a pitcher, to me protection does not exist. I'm not going to give more fastballs to their 2-hitter because I don't want to see their 3-hitter, I'm trying to get them out equally.

And I know someone is going to post and say "Well I remember a time when Putsy "Don't Call Me That" Caballero (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cabalpu01.shtml) got three straight fastballs because the pitcher didn't want to face Dick "Ow That Hurts" Sisler (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sisledi01.shtml) who was on-deck." I will admit that that situation does arise in the sense that sometimes a trick pitcher will throw more to an unproven hitter (or a proven bad hitter) and not want to face the guy that has proven he can smack your trick pitches around the yard. However do not confuse this with protection rising from the dead, it still does not exist. This protection myth/fallacy that people are talkng about is supposed to occur in such vast quantities as to be readily visible by any and everyone, but it doesn't. The trick pitcher situation does occur, but the other type really does not, and in the end the results are not statistically significant.

voodoochile
09-19-2008, 03:53 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Baseball-Between-Numbers-Everything-About/dp/0465005969

Buy it, read it, learn that protection does not exist.

And no, I'm not going to argue that they do not get a lot of IBB's to get to the pitcher spot, but that's not protection, is it? Your point (from what I can gather) is that the presence of Manny Ramirez in the on-deck circle forced more fastballs/pitches-over-the-plate to be thrown to Andre Ethier, and that caused a spike in his numbers. That is not at all related to an IBB to get to the pitcher's spot in the order, and that act is certainly not protection.

And just because people can or think they can see something with their eyes doesn't make it correct. And it certainly doesn't grant that "something" as a gold-standard which others must disprove before making any real headway. Again, protection, while a good idea that makes people feel all good about baseball on the inside, simply does not exist. Read the aforementioned book, and Bill James has some good books out there, too.

Before I go out and spend good money on a book I have no desire to read, can you point me to any double blind studies that support your point? Any studies that take multiple years into account?

I mean with all the data available to us you'd think you'd be able to site more than 50+ data points scattered over 3 seasons to prove your point.

Maybe as defined by Bill James, protection might not be as pronounced as many people assume, but is it situation dependent?

Does a player batting in front of Manny Ramirez with the men on first and second and 2 outs get more good pitches than the guy batting in front of Jerry Owens in a similar circumstance? It kind of stands to reason that he does. I bet if you asked managers which guy they'd be more likely to throw fastballs to, you'd get a pretty definitive answer.

Besides, the study itself may be flawed if all you look at is guys who stayed in a single slot in the batting order and compared their stats between when the monster bat was hitting behind them and merely a good-great bat was hitting behind them. I mean if you are batting second in the Red Sox order, there isn't a huge drop off between Manny and Pappy. Same with the White Sox. Jermaine Dye provides similar protection to Thome or Konerko (most years).

You want one rule to fit every baseball AB - protection does not exist. I seriously doubt that's true, but when a team has their 3-4-5 guys coming up, in most cases there isn't a massive difference. It's not like Manny is batting 3rd and the aforementioned Owens is batting 4th.

Find someone to do a serious study and not just analyze a few years numbers of a few select guys and get back to me. Linking to a book put out by the very people who support that hypothesis won't make your case stronger.

How many games were the Sox supposed to win this year according to the people who wrote that book anyway? Somehow I doubt they'll be screaming I told you so and beating their chests this year...

Edit: Oh and well the IBB to the 8th place hitter in the NL may not prove protection exists, it darn well seems to say something about the lack of protection, wouldn't you say?

Lefty34
09-19-2008, 04:10 PM
Does a player batting in front of Manny Ramirez with the men on first and second and 2 outs get more good pitches than the guy batting in front of Jerry Owens in a similar circumstance? It kind of stands to reason that he does. I bet if you asked managers which guy they'd be more likely to throw fastballs to, you'd get a pretty definitive answer.



How many times does that happen in a season? How many times would it take for that to happen in order to make someone's batting line jump? Those situations aren't statistically significant. That was your original point to diffuse my points about the Dodgers players already playing very well: that the presence of Manny's bat had those guys see more fastballs because of this protection fallacy. And even in your little situation, the guy might get more fastballs not because the pitcher doesn't want to face Manny, but because he wants to get the guy at the plate out. Maybe the guy at the plate fishes for fastballs early on in the count, maybe his previous AB's have started with breaking balls so now the pitcher is going to switch it up to fool him, who knows? Just because someone gets fastballs does not necessarily mean that the guy on-deck is somehow forcing the pitcher to do so.

And, wait, why does protection all of a sudden exist? Why must there be studies with charts and graphs and blind people in order to prove something that was arbitrarily said to exist? You show me that protection exists, because in my mind it has never existed. I want all those fancy things you just said, too. So get at it.

turners56
09-19-2008, 04:15 PM
So to you, protection might or might not exist to some pitchers, and those pitchers might or might not want to throw more fastballs to someone? That is far from existence. What some people lack is the ability to differentiate good fuzzy-feeling ideas from things that actually exist. I'm a pitcher, to me protection does not exist. I'm not going to give more fastballs to their 2-hitter because I don't want to see their 3-hitter, I'm trying to get them out equally.

And I know someone is going to post and say "Well I remember a time when Putsy "Don't Call Me That" Caballero (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cabalpu01.shtml) got three straight fastballs because the pitcher didn't want to face Dick "Ow That Hurts" Sisler (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sisledi01.shtml) who was on-deck." I will admit that that situation does arise in the sense that sometimes a trick pitcher will throw more to an unproven hitter (or a proven bad hitter) and not want to face the guy that has proven he can smack your trick pitches around the yard. However do not confuse this with protection rising from the dead, it still does not exist. This protection myth/fallacy that people are talkng about is supposed to occur in such vast quantities as to be readily visible by any and everyone, but it doesn't. The trick pitcher situation does occur, but the other type really does not, and in the end the results are not statistically significant.

It's a similar theory as to why some hitters hit well in the clutch and some do not. Baseball is a psychological sport. In every at bat, there's a cloud of thinking going on in the hitter's, catcher's, and the pitcher's minds.

Don't you think that the presence of a deadly hitter like Ramirez or Pujols will give benefit to the player batting ahead of him?

If I'm a pitcher (and this is me; I wouldn't go and say that this is what the majority of pitchers think) and I have Manny Ramirez on deck and Andre Ethier at the plate right now with one out. Wouldn't I try and get Ethier out with all effort in order to avoid giving up a two-run home run to Ramirez?

Now, you might say that I'm trying to prove your point. No, I'm not. When pitchers tend to get perfect (and Javier Vazquez is a perfect example of my case), they go and try to dot the corners and end up missing just off the plate. The result? Ethier gets a good hitter's count and gets a pitch to hit with a 3-1 count or he walks. Without the presence of Ramirez, the pitcher might be less tense and pitch Ethier the way he usually does.


Anywho, this may not be the case for every pitcher out there. Not everybody is the same psychologically. Some might not be intimidated, some might piss their pants. That is why there is no trend in such studies of protection.

daveeym
09-19-2008, 05:58 PM
This is going off on a tangent, yes, but 1987 was a weird year for MVPs.

I'll omit the player names.

NL:
Player A (1B): .286/.459/.597, 35 HR, 106 RBI, 309 outs
Player B (RF): .287/.328/.568, 49 HR, 137 RBI, 463 outs

I'd go with Player A, who made 154 fewer outs and got on base 13.1% more. Those two figures more than make up for a 14-HR gap. Player A is Jack Clark, who played for the first-place Cardinals. Player B is Andre Dawson, who played for the last-place Cubs. If I remember correctly, granted I was 11 at the time, Dawson seemed to be getting a lot of lifetime achievement love.

AL:
Player C (LF): .308/.352/.605, 47 HR, 135 RBI, 449 outs
Player D (SS): .343/.402/.551, 28 HR, 105 RBI, 413 outs

In the AL, I think it's pretty clear that Player D had a better year. He got on base 5% of the time more, out of the shortstop position. His team made the playoffs. Player C is George Bell, who played for the second-place Blue Jays. Player D is Alan Trammel, who played for the first-place Tigers.

Of course, Dawson and Bell won the MVP awards.I didn't get into the AL side of it but as I said earlier, the cards were stacked and for whatever reason Ozzie Smith was considered their main MVP as he was second in the voting.

daveeym
09-19-2008, 06:03 PM
So to you, protection might or might not exist to some pitchers, and those pitchers might or might not want to throw more fastballs to someone? That is far from existence. What some people lack is the ability to differentiate good fuzzy-feeling ideas from things that actually exist. I'm a pitcher, to me protection does not exist. I'm not going to give more fastballs to their 2-hitter because I don't want to see their 3-hitter, I'm trying to get them out equally.

And I know someone is going to post and say "Well I remember a time when Putsy "Don't Call Me That" Caballero (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cabalpu01.shtml) got three straight fastballs because the pitcher didn't want to face Dick "Ow That Hurts" Sisler (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sisledi01.shtml) who was on-deck." I will admit that that situation does arise in the sense that sometimes a trick pitcher will throw more to an unproven hitter (or a proven bad hitter) and not want to face the guy that has proven he can smack your trick pitches around the yard. However do not confuse this with protection rising from the dead, it still does not exist. This protection myth/fallacy that people are talkng about is supposed to occur in such vast quantities as to be readily visible by any and everyone, but it doesn't. The trick pitcher situation does occur, but the other type really does not, and in the end the results are not statistically significant.It doesn't have to be fastballs, instead of nibbling at corners they could be throwing their curves over more of the plate, and thus when they miss it's meatball time instead of just a little too much of the plate.

EndemicSox
09-19-2008, 07:07 PM
Have any of you guys listened to the Score today or lately? Everyone is seriously petitioning for Geovanny Soto as MVP of the entire NL. Are they high? He doesn't even have the best stats on the team (Aramis does). MVP of the team? Maybe. ROY? Probably. MVP of the NL? Get real. If the day comes where the NL MVP has numbers of .285/23/86, I'll run out in traffic blindfolded.

I always give catchers a break due to the difficulty of the position and the overall importance of it from a defensive perspective. From what I've seen of Soto, he is excllent at calling a game/throwing runners out, and he doesn't take days off. He is the Cubs MVP, but a catcher always has an up-hill battle in the awards race due to their stats taking a hit from wear-and-tear and the voters not looking at the defensive aspect of the game. Nevertheless, they got a good one, and my god, did he come out of thin air? I guess I'm saying catchers deserve more respect than most of them get from the media...props to Soto...

RockyMtnSoxFan
09-22-2008, 02:41 PM
The Dodgers have scored zero or one run three times in the last week. Is Manny still the MVP/savior who turns mediocre teams into champions?

Lefty34
09-22-2008, 02:46 PM
The Dodgers have scored zero or one run three times in the last week. Is Manny still the MVP/savior who turns mediocre teams into champions?

No, and he never was.