NL MVP

[imb]

if Bonds 73 HR season was on a team that went 40-122, would he still be the MVP?

 

Without a doubt.

 

The MVP has nothing to do with your teammates.

[Derwood]

if Bonds 73 HR season was on a team that went 40-122, would he still be the MVP?

 

Without a doubt.

 

The MVP has nothing to do with your teammates.

 

then they should rename it Player of the Year and take the word "valuable" out of it

[Transmogrified Tiger]

if Bonds 73 HR season was on a team that went 40-122, would he still be the MVP?

 

Without a doubt.

 

The MVP has nothing to do with your teammates.

 

then they should rename it Player of the Year and take the word "valuable" out of it

 

The "Player of the Year" contributes the most "value". I don't see what's so hard about this.

[Derwood]

if Bonds 73 HR season was on a team that went 40-122, would he still be the MVP?

 

Without a doubt.

 

The MVP has nothing to do with your teammates.

 

then they should rename it Player of the Year and take the word "valuable" out of it

 

The "Player of the Year" contributes the most "value". I don't see what's so hard about this.

 

i think valuable can be interepreted too many ways (as we've seen in this thread)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

if Bonds 73 HR season was on a team that went 40-122, would he still be the MVP?

 

Without a doubt.

 

The MVP has nothing to do with your teammates.

 

then they should rename it Player of the Year and take the word "valuable" out of it

 

The "Player of the Year" contributes the most "value". I don't see what's so hard about this.

 

i think valuable can be interepreted too many ways (as we've seen in this thread)

 

Then why say they should remove the word?

[Derwood]

if Bonds 73 HR season was on a team that went 40-122, would he still be the MVP?

 

Without a doubt.

 

The MVP has nothing to do with your teammates.

 

then they should rename it Player of the Year and take the word "valuable" out of it

 

The "Player of the Year" contributes the most "value". I don't see what's so hard about this.

 

i think valuable can be interepreted too many ways (as we've seen in this thread)

 

Then why say they should remove the word?

 

so all you guys stop being pissed when people give it to who they think is most valuable instead of giving it to the statistically best player

[Derwood]

EVERYTHING in baseball is team dependent. NOTHING happens in a vacuum

[Derwood]

and another reason I picked Hardy over Chipper:

 

Stats with RISP:

 

Hardy: 44 AB (53 PA), .341/.434/.705, 4 HR, 27 RBI

Jones: 45 AB (55 PA), .200/.345/.533, 4 HR, 16 RBI

 

so there you go. nearly identical #of chances with RISP, and Hardy has produced more runs for his team.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

EVERYTHING in baseball is team dependent. NOTHING happens in a vacuum

 

Difference between you hitting a double and a home run = not dependent on your teammates at all

 

Difference between you hitting a double that gives you an RBI/you get a run after the double, and not getting the RBI/run on the double = ENTIRELY dependent on your teammates

[imb]

if Bonds 73 HR season was on a team that went 40-122, would he still be the MVP?

 

Without a doubt.

 

The MVP has nothing to do with your teammates.

 

then they should rename it Player of the Year and take the word "valuable" out of it

 

Sorry broham, I can't get on board with you on this one.

 

I think a player who is statistically the best provides the most value to his team. If his teammates suck, and this team doesn't win, that's their problem, he was still individually the most valuable player, much like McGwire in 98.

[Derwood]

EVERYTHING in baseball is team dependent. NOTHING happens in a vacuum

 

Difference between you hitting a double and a home run = not dependent on your teammates at all

 

Difference between you hitting a double that gives you an RBI/you get a run after the double, and not getting the RBI/run on the double = ENTIRELY dependent on your teammates

 

difference between you hitting a double and a homer is, in part, due to the pitch being thrown/called, which is, in part, effected by who is on-deck, who (if anyone) is on base, what the score is, when in the game it is, whether the wind is blowing in or out....

[Transmogrified Tiger]

EVERYTHING in baseball is team dependent. NOTHING happens in a vacuum

 

Difference between you hitting a double and a home run = not dependent on your teammates at all

 

Difference between you hitting a double that gives you an RBI/you get a run after the double, and not getting the RBI/run on the double = ENTIRELY dependent on your teammates

 

difference between you hitting a double and a homer is, in part, due to the pitch being thrown/called, which is, in part, effected by who is no-deck, who (if anyone is on base), what the score is, when in the game it is, whether the wind is blowing in or out....

 

Clearly, there are way too many variables to decide. MLB needs to make a couple 400-sided die with every player's name on it and whoever's name comes up wins the MVP for that league.

[Derwood]

EVERYTHING in baseball is team dependent. NOTHING happens in a vacuum

 

Difference between you hitting a double and a home run = not dependent on your teammates at all

 

Difference between you hitting a double that gives you an RBI/you get a run after the double, and not getting the RBI/run on the double = ENTIRELY dependent on your teammates

 

difference between you hitting a double and a homer is, in part, due to the pitch being thrown/called, which is, in part, effected by who is no-deck, who (if anyone is on base), what the score is, when in the game it is, whether the wind is blowing in or out....

 

Clearly, there are way too many variables to decide. MLB needs to make a couple 400-sided die with every player's name on it and whoever's name comes up wins the MVP for that league.

 

ha ha ha, nice comeback.

[Tracer Bullet]

and another reason I picked Hardy over Chipper:

 

Stats with RISP:

 

Hardy: 44 AB (53 PA), .341/.434/.705, 4 HR, 27 RBI

Jones: 45 AB (55 PA), .200/.345/.533, 4 HR, 16 RBI

 

so there you go. nearly identical #of chances with RISP, and Hardy has produced more runs for his team.

 

I realize there's a sample size issue to begin with, but when you cut it down to 50 PAs/45 ABs, the difference in AVG/OBP, etc is much smaller than the numbers above would indicate. Difference in average is about 5-6 hits, difference in OBP is about 4 hits/walks.

 

I also realize that over the course of the season, the difference b/t .250 and .300 is about a hit a week, but when you're talking 25 weeks, that's a significant difference. When you're talking less than 1 hit per week over roughly 6-8 weeks, it's less significant.

 

Summary: Even for a season MVP, I don't give a great deal of weight to situational stats, but for a first quarter MVP, they're basically worthless.

[Mephistopheles]

and another reason I picked Hardy over Chipper:

 

Stats with RISP:

 

Hardy: 44 AB (53 PA), .341/.434/.705, 4 HR, 27 RBI

Jones: 45 AB (55 PA), .200/.345/.533, 4 HR, 16 RBI

 

so there you go. nearly identical #of chances with RISP, and Hardy has produced more runs for his team.

 

I CAN DO IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

RISP w/ 2 outs

.211/.348/.474/.822 - Chipper

.227/.320/.409/.729 - Hardy

 

Close and Late

.360/.500/.880/1.380 - Chipper

.270/.289/.730/1.019 - Hardy

 

Tie Game

.302/.483/.767/1.250 - Chipper

.258/.300/.470/.770 - Hardy

 

The game is within one run either way

.347/.467/.867/1.334 - Chipper

.307/.346/.614/.960 - Hardy

 

 

There ya go, beaten at your own game.

[soccer10k]

I agree with Derwood to a point. How valuable a player is to his team, to me, means that if you took that player off the team, how much would the team suffer? For example, I don't think ARod should have won the MVP award in 2003. The Rangers finished 71-91 that year (last place in the AL West), 25 games out of first place and 24 out of a playoff spot. If you took ARod off the Rangers, that wouldn't have changed where the Rangers finished because they still would have been last in the AL West.

 

For example, the last couple years in the NBA I would have voted for both Kobe and LeBron over Dirk and Steve Nash because of how much they meant to their teams. Dallas this year finished with 67 wins and would have been a top 4 seed regardless. Same with the Suns. The Suns would have had to play a different style but there's no way a team with two other All-Stars in Marion and Stoudamire doesn't win the Pacific and get a top 4 seed. Whereas Kobe had to rely on Smush Parker and Kwame Brown (in addition to a ton of injuries this year). I would also have given McGrady just as many votes this year as Nowitzki or Nash because Yao missed so much time.

 

That being said, I'm not saying that the MVP should be limited to a player on a playoff team in baseball but that is only because only four teams from each team. Like the award implies, it's not the best player in the league, it's the most valuable and I fail to see how a player can be valuable to a team that doesn't even sniff the playoffs.

 

EDIT: A baseball example: DLee was the best player in baseball in 2005 but he wasn't the most valuable.

[Tracer Bullet]

I agree with Derwood to a point. How valuable a player is to his team, to me, means that if you took that player off the team, how much would the team suffer? For example, I don't think ARod should have won the MVP award in 2003. The Rangers finished 71-91 that year (last place in the AL West), 25 games out of first place and 24 out of a playoff spot. If you took ARod off the Rangers, that wouldn't have changed where the Rangers finished because they still would have been last in the AL West.

 

For example, the last couple years in the NBA I would have voted for both Kobe and LeBron over Dirk and Steve Nash because of how much they meant to their teams. Dallas this year finished with 67 wins and would have been a top 4 seed regardless. Same with the Suns. The Suns would have had to play a different style but there's no way a team with two other All-Stars in Marion and Stoudamire doesn't win the Pacific and get a top 4 seed. Whereas Kobe had to rely on Smush Parker and Kwame Brown (in addition to a ton of injuries this year). I would also have given McGrady just as many votes this year as Nowitzki or Nash because Yao missed so much time.

 

That being said, I'm not saying that the MVP should be limited to a player on a playoff team in baseball but that is only because only four teams from each team. Like the award implies, it's not the best player in the league, it's the most valuable and I fail to see how a player can be valuable to a team that doesn't even sniff the playoffs.

 

EDIT: A baseball example: DLee was the best player in baseball in 2005 but he wasn't the most valuable.

 

I don't think your NBA analogy holds much water. The Suns struggled without Nash this year. Even if they hadn't, one player can have a huge effect on a 5-man team (especially in basketball where a guy can take over a game for several minutes at a time). In baseball, it's easier to negate one great player on a bad team (like pitching around him).

 

But to your overall point, it still goes back to how you define "value." You're just using a different definition. You seem to be saying that a player is only valuable if his team competes (either by making the playoffs or coming close to it). But that's still saying that a player is only valuable if his teammates are good enough to help the team win. Again - rewarding or not rewarding a player based on things totally out of his control.

 

To use your ARod example. I don't know what the actual numbers are for '03 and I don't want to look them up. But if the Rangers were 25 games out with him on the team. They probably would have been 35-40 games worse w/o him. So ARod's "value" is 10-15 games (someone will likely look this up and point out how wrong I am, but making up numbers will work for my purposes). Is it his fault that the rest of his team combined was only worth 55-60 games? Is he less valuable b/c his teammates sucked? His presence on that team (or not) may not have had an impact on the playoff picture, but that's a different question (to me) than whether ARod was most valuable. If ARod's presence meant 15 more wins for his team and the next best player (Player B) meant 12 wins to his team - ARod was more valuable, even if Player B's team made the playoffs.

[Derwood]

i want to steer away from the "value" thing for a sec and re-ask the question again: how valuable is a player who puts up a high OPS but doesn't add runs to the scoreboard?

[SouthSideRyan]

A baseball example: DLee was the best player in baseball in 2005 but he wasn't the most valuable.

 

The best player is always the most valuable. If Derrek Lee was on the Cardinals that year why would he be more valuable? What about teams that run away with their division? If you win the division by 10+ games can you not be an MVP from that team either?

 

People always insist on using analogies from other sports to prove their point regarding baseball. They don't work because they're different sports. You have a lot more of an affect on the style your team plays and how well your teammates play in basketball compared to baseball.

[rocket]

i want to steer away from the "value" thing for a sec and re-ask the question again: how valuable is a player who puts up a high OPS but doesn't add runs to the scoreboard?

 

name a player with a high ops that doesn't add runs to the scoreboard

[Derwood]

i want to steer away from the "value" thing for a sec and re-ask the question again: how valuable is a player who puts up a high OPS but doesn't add runs to the scoreboard?

 

name a player with a high ops that doesn't add runs to the scoreboard

 

i can name some that haven't been great at putting runs on the board:

 

Derrek Lee

Todd Helton

Jorge Posada

Ken Griffey Jr.

[Mephistopheles]

i want to steer away from the "value" thing for a sec and re-ask the question again: how valuable is a player who puts up a high OPS but doesn't add runs to the scoreboard?

 

name a player with a high ops that doesn't add runs to the scoreboard

 

i can name some that haven't been great at putting runs on the board:

 

Derrek Lee

Todd Helton

Jorge Posada

Ken Griffey Jr.

yeah youre really making a good argument pulling random names out of your ass. i guess you went OMG OPS but no R and RBI to back up your claim. It's pretty lame.

[rocket]

i want to steer away from the "value" thing for a sec and re-ask the question again: how valuable is a player who puts up a high OPS but doesn't add runs to the scoreboard?

 

name a player with a high ops that doesn't add runs to the scoreboard

 

i can name some that haven't been great at putting runs on the board:

 

Derrek Lee

Todd Helton

Jorge Posada

Ken Griffey Jr.

 

it looks like all of them are on pace for 90+ rbi seasons.

[Mephistopheles]

Posada is on pace for 102 RBI and 106 R. Just 20 HR

Lee is on pace for 101 RBI and 101 R. Just 12 HR

Griffey is on pace for 110 RBI and 84 R (Bad Legs/Bad Reds).

[NCCubFan]

yeah youre really making a good argument pulling random names out of your ass. i guess you went OMG OPS but no R and RBI to back up your claim. It's pretty lame.

Didn't Tim warn you to cut out the condescending tone just within the past day or so?