PDA

View Full Version : This one of the strangest votes I've seen


johnnyg83
03-26-2012, 12:21 AM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1998.shtml#ALmvp

How did Albert finish in 8th for MVP when he beat Gonzalez in 95% of the statistical measures? And he beat Nomar in almost every stat ... buncha baloney.

His OPS was .60 higher than anyone. ***!

BainesHOF
03-26-2012, 12:27 AM
Belle was MIA for the first six to eight weeks of the season. By the time he started hitting, our season was finished.

TDog
03-26-2012, 12:42 AM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1998.shtml#ALmvp

How did Albert finish in 8th for MVP when he beat Gonzalez in 95% of the statistical measures? And he beat Nomar in almost every stat ... buncha baloney.

His OPS was .60 higher than anyone. ***!

The MVP isn't about stats, as much as people now want to make it out to be. Check out this vote (http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1965.shtml#ALmvp). Notice the margins in the balloting and notice the offensive year enjoyed by Carl Yastrzemski compared with the MVP and where Yastrzemski finished in the vote.

There is a difference between an offensive player of the year (or even the pitcher of the year) and the most valuable player of the league.

pudge
03-26-2012, 01:52 AM
Belle was MIA for the first six to eight weeks of the season. By the time he started hitting, our season was finished.

That shouldn't result in him being so low. If anything, his miserable '97 right after he signed the big contract probably contributed to a poor perception. If I recall, Big Frank was amazing in '97 while Belle stunk, and then Frank went off the deep end in '98 (the first poor season of his career) while Belle was fantastic. Ugh, those were painful years.

Didn't Belle have the whole cork-gate from his days with the Indians right around then?

Irishsox1
03-26-2012, 09:15 AM
Albert had an awesome second half but the Sox were out of it plus any media attention that year was firmly on Sosa.

Foulke You
03-26-2012, 11:25 AM
Albert had an awesome second half but the Sox were out of it plus any media attention that year was firmly on Sosa.
You pretty much summed it up. The Sox had virtually no media attention in the late '90s other than the white flag trade. Albert was horrible in the first two months of the season but really turned it on in the second half of '98. By that time, it was too late. Also, Albert wasn't exactly known for treating the media well so I'm sure that plays a part too.

DumpJerry
03-26-2012, 11:33 AM
The strangest vote ever was the one for the 2010 AL Shortstop Gold Glove award.

MISoxfan
03-26-2012, 11:43 AM
The MVP isn't about stats, as much as people now want to make it out to be. Check out this vote (http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1965.shtml#ALmvp). Notice the margins in the balloting and notice the offensive year enjoyed by Carl Yastrzemski compared with the MVP and where Yastrzemski finished in the vote.

There is a difference between an offensive player of the year (or even the pitcher of the year) and the most valuable player of the league.

The MVP is about what the voters from the time period want to make it out to be. There is no way that vote you just linked would happen today, and just because it happened in 1965 doesn't make it more legitimate.

TDog
03-26-2012, 02:12 PM
The MVP is about what the voters from the time period want to make it out to be. There is no way that vote you just linked would happen today, and just because it happened in 1965 doesn't make it more legitimate.

I agree in some respects. Many of the MVP voters don't see enough of baseball around the league to judge who the most valuable player of the league is. Like many fans, they look to statistics.

The MVP has generally been regarded as the most valuable player. Rarely does it go to a player that plays for a team that isn't seriously contending because the school of thought is that the teams wouldn't have contended without them. The exceptions are for the players who have unbelievably impressive years. But the statistic that carries the most weight is the RBI, which is a stat that many stathead dismiss. Of course, MVP voters aren't looking at how the statistics quantify your abilities but what you did. If you drove in run, you helped your team win.
With more teams in baseball and more divisional races, the voters are not up on every team the way they used to be. In 1965, every team in the league played every other team 18 times. You only had one divisional race. The voters who covered their teams saw the great year Carl Yastrzemski was having, but they also saw the incredible year Zoilo Versalles had with huge game-winning hits and huge game-winning defensive plays for the pennant-winning team. Versalles won the MVP without controversy and it wasn't even close.

Now if you're covering the Yankees or Red Sox these days and all you have are home-and-home series against teams from the Central, all you have to go by are the stats and the highlights on your favorite baseball network, and you might not pay attention to the highlights.

Even the people who rely on stats to vote generally consider the impact the MVP candidates have on the divisional races. It isn't at all strange that Albert Belle's great statistical season with the White Sox got him no higher than eighth in the MVP voting. His heroics weren't a factor in the divisional race.

MISoxfan
03-26-2012, 05:35 PM
Oh, I agree that it will usually go to a contending team and I wasn't arguing that Yastrzemski or Belle should have won. You had said that the MVP isn't about stats, as much as people want it to be, but MVP is pretty loosely defined. I just thought it was a strange comment because it seemed to imply that there was a real standard for valuable player despite what the general opinion on that is, but if enough voters want to base it entirely on statistics then it will become exactly that.

I'm not weighing in on if its right or wrong.

getonbckthr
03-26-2012, 05:47 PM
I probably would've given the MVP to A-Rod that year personally...

TDog
03-26-2012, 06:02 PM
Oh, I agree that it will usually go to a contending team and I wasn't arguing that Yastrzemski or Belle should have won. You had said that the MVP isn't about stats, as much as people want it to be, but MVP is pretty loosely defined. I just thought it was a strange comment because it seemed to imply that there was a real standard for valuable player despite what the general opinion on that is, but if enough voters want to base it entirely on statistics then it will become exactly that.

I'm not weighing in on if its right or wrong.

I am saying that MVP voters, certainly the ones I've talked to, don't go by stats as much as many fans believe they do. MVP candidates often have great stats, but it is in the context of what they are doing for their team and in the pennant race that generally get them the most MVP consideration. You can hit over .400 with an on-base percentage of over .550, lead the league in home runs and runs scored and not win the MVP. You can later win the triple crown twice and not win the MVP in either of those two seasons.

The MVP is a subjective award in which personal achievements are generally honored in the context of winning.

dickallen15
03-26-2012, 06:04 PM
Belle was MIA for the first six to eight weeks of the season. By the time he started hitting, our season was finished.
His worst OPS for any month that season was .854 so the MIA part is pretty exaggerated. He was on fire the second half of the season. There are 2 reasons IMO he didn't get more votes, a. the Sox were out of it, which you mentioned and B. the guy was a total *******, especially to those who vote. He really should have won the MVP in 1995 but his personality did him in.

Tragg
03-26-2012, 07:30 PM
Because the Sox didn't contend and most of his numbers were put up in the 2nd half when the Sox were long out of it.

ghostface36
03-27-2012, 12:24 AM
albert belle got robbed of two mvp's during the 90's. It's a shame what happened to him now, b/c dude was one of the best hitters of the 90's. Definitely the most feared hitter of the 90's.
Plus his forearm to fernando vina was Mod edit: DO NOT attempt to circumvent the language filters by clever misspellings. fantastic

Johnny Mostil
03-27-2012, 07:48 AM
The MVP is about what the voters from the time period want to make it out to be. There is no way that vote you just linked would happen today, and just because it happened in 1965 doesn't make it more legitimate.

I agree with your point that the MVP is about what the voters want it to be, but I'm curious why you think the 1965 vote wouldn't happen today. Versalles was a Gold Glove infielder for a pennant-winning team and led the league in runs scored, doubles, triples, total bases, and extra-base hits. He was also third in stolen bases, and, for whatever it's worth, also led the league in WAR. Why wouldn't he win an MVP vote today, even a stats-based one?

(For the record, I'm not old enough to recall anything of the 1965 season, and, really, can't tell you much about Versalles but what appears here (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/versazo01.shtml). So maybe there's something I'm missing!)

BainesHOF
03-27-2012, 08:21 PM
His worst OPS for any month that season was .854 so the MIA part is pretty exaggerated. He was on fire the second half of the season. There are 2 reasons IMO he didn't get more votes, a. the Sox were out of it, which you mentioned and B. the guy was a total *******, especially to those who vote. He really should have won the MVP in 1995 but his personality did him in.

I'd have to take a closer look at how long his bad start lasted and just how bad it was, but I remember that he was a main reason why the team fell out of contention in record time. That does not make for an MVP regardless of biases. Belle was Dick Allen-ish incredible in the second half of the season, but by then his production only mattered to his personal stats.

MISoxfan
03-27-2012, 08:33 PM
I agree with your point that the MVP is about what the voters want it to be, but I'm curious why you think the 1965 vote wouldn't happen today. Versalles was a Gold Glove infielder for a pennant-winning team and led the league in runs scored, doubles, triples, total bases, and extra-base hits. He was also third in stolen bases, and, for whatever it's worth, also led the league in WAR. Why wouldn't he win an MVP vote today, even a stats-based one?

(For the record, I'm not old enough to recall anything of the 1965 season, and, really, can't tell you much about Versalles but what appears here (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/versazo01.shtml). So maybe there's something I'm missing!)

I guess its possible. I just didn't see anyone hitting for his average without cracking the top 10 in HRs winning the MVP today even if they do play short, but then again Jimmy Rollins did just win it a few years back. I also didn't notice his 45 doubles or the fact that he lead the league in WAR.'

I also based it on his OPS+, but I didn't realize that league leader only had 156. It hasn't been that low since 1984.