End of season MVP Discussion

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Once again, a performance's value is intrinsic. It isn't dependent upon how well the value was capitalized by those around him.

 

Is the value of a Monet diminished because an art collector keeps it hidden in an attic? No. It still is just as valuable even if that value isn't utilized.

 

I'm not sure it's that simple.

 

If you have two portraits of Abe Lincoln (exact duplicates), and one of them is documented to have been in my attic, while the other has been documented to have been hanging in the halls of the White House, then most people would pay more for the one from the White House, don't you think? Wouldn't that make it "more valuable"?

 

But in your example the "value" comes from it having been in a prominent place not from the work of art itself. It's why people will buy a brick from Busch stadium and not from my house. People are valuing sentimentality not quality there.

 

But if you bought the Abe Lincoln portrait documented from the White House, it's value would not change regardless of where you hang it.

[Derwood]

Remember, these writers gave the award to Terry Pendleton not so long ago.

 

Trust no one!

[K-Town]

Once again, a performance's value is intrinsic. It isn't dependent upon how well the value was capitalized by those around him.

 

Is the value of a Monet diminished because an art collector keeps it hidden in an attic? No. It still is just as valuable even if that value isn't utilized.

 

I'm not sure it's that simple.

 

If you have two portraits of Abe Lincoln (exact duplicates), and one of them is documented to have been in my attic, while the other has been documented to have been hanging in the halls of the White House, then most people would pay more for the one from the White House, don't you think? Wouldn't that make it "more valuable"?

 

But in your example the "value" comes from it having been in a prominent place not from the work of art itself. It's why people will buy a brick from Busch stadium and not from my house. People are valuing sentimentality not quality there.

 

But if you bought the Abe Lincoln portrait documented from the White House, it's value would not change regardless of where you hang it.

 

I guess it depends on how you view "value". If somebody is willing to pay more for it because it's been in the White House, then I would say that it has higher "value".

 

Likewise, since Pujols is playing on the "White House" of baseball teams, people may perceive that he has more "value". Maybe it's just perception......... I can see your point.

[vaball]

Once again, a performance's value is intrinsic. It isn't dependent upon how well the value was capitalized by those around him.

 

Is the value of a Monet diminished because an art collector keeps it hidden in an attic? No. It still is just as valuable even if that value isn't utilized.

 

I'm not sure it's that simple.

 

If you have two portraits of Abe Lincoln (exact duplicates), and one of them is documented to have been in my attic, while the other has been documented to have been hanging in the halls of the White House, then most people would pay more for the one from the White House, don't you think? Wouldn't that make it "more valuable"?

 

But in your example the "value" comes from it having been in a prominent place not from the work of art itself. It's why people will buy a brick from Busch stadium and not from my house. People are valuing sentimentality not quality there.

 

But if you bought the Abe Lincoln portrait documented from the White House, it's value would not change regardless of where you hang it.

 

I guess it depends on how you view "value". If somebody is willing to pay more for it because it's been in the White House, then I would say that it has higher "value".

 

Likewise, since Pujols is playing on the "White House" of baseball teams, people may perceive that he has more "value". Maybe it's just perception......... I can see your point.

 

If Pujols were on the White House of baseball teams we wouldn't be playing at freakin' noon today and 3 on Thursday.

[gus_dog]

IMO, your analogies don't really work.

 

Baseball has a body of work here that has over 100 years of history to base this upon. This history, IMO, makes your analogies superfluous.

 

Pujols will win, and he deserves it.

 

Lee won't win, but he too deserves it.

 

Pujols plays for the better team, that made the playoffs, and Lee plays for the lesser team, that did not make the post-season.

 

I believe it to be as cut-and-dried as it can be at this point.

 

I don't like it, but it is what it is.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Okay, there's an Abe Lincoln painting(Lee), and another Abe Lincoln painting with a slight blemish(Pujols). The untarnished painting hangs in my attic while the other is in the White House. Which is more valuable? The untainted painting. If I were to just see the two without any context of their location, I'd pick the unblemished one every time. If both were in the same location, I'd pick the unblemished one. The unblemished painting can't do anything more to it's surroundings than the beauty it provides, and it shouldn't be punished for things out of its control. Likewise, the tainted painting shouldn't be elevated because of things outside its control.

[K-Town]

Okay, there's an Abe Lincoln painting(Lee), and another Abe Lincoln painting with a slight blemish(Pujols). The untarnished painting hangs in my attic while the other is in the White House. Which is more valuable? The untainted painting. If I were to just see the two without any context of their location, I'd pick the unblemished one every time. If both were in the same location, I'd pick the unblemished one. The unblemished painting can't do anything more to it's surroundings than the beauty it provides, and it shouldn't be punished for things out of its control. Likewise, the tainted painting shouldn't be elevated because of things outside its control.

 

If people knew that one came from the White House, and the other one didn't, then they'd take the one that came from the White House.

[K-Town]

IMO, your analogies don't really work.

 

Baseball has a body of work here that has over 100 years of history to base this upon. This history, IMO, makes your analogies superfluous.

 

If you want to use historical perspective, then Pujols should definitely win.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Okay, there's an Abe Lincoln painting(Lee), and another Abe Lincoln painting with a slight blemish(Pujols). The untarnished painting hangs in my attic while the other is in the White House. Which is more valuable? The untainted painting. If I were to just see the two without any context of their location, I'd pick the unblemished one every time. If both were in the same location, I'd pick the unblemished one. The unblemished painting can't do anything more to it's surroundings than the beauty it provides, and it shouldn't be punished for things out of its control. Likewise, the tainted painting shouldn't be elevated because of things outside its control.

 

If people knew that one came from the White House, and the other one didn't, then they'd take the one that came from the White House.

 

But playing for the Cards in intrincally no more valuable than playing for the Cubs. In fact, considering things like marketability, it might be more valuable to play for the Cubs.

[K-Town]

Okay, there's an Abe Lincoln painting(Lee), and another Abe Lincoln painting with a slight blemish(Pujols). The untarnished painting hangs in my attic while the other is in the White House. Which is more valuable? The untainted painting. If I were to just see the two without any context of their location, I'd pick the unblemished one every time. If both were in the same location, I'd pick the unblemished one. The unblemished painting can't do anything more to it's surroundings than the beauty it provides, and it shouldn't be punished for things out of its control. Likewise, the tainted painting shouldn't be elevated because of things outside its control.

 

If people knew that one came from the White House, and the other one didn't, then they'd take the one that came from the White House.

 

But playing for the Cards in intrincally no more valuable than playing for the Cubs. In fact, considering things like marketability, it might be more valuable to play for the Cubs.

 

Cubs fans believe that, and they should. I would, if I were a Cubs fan. Everyone else probably views Pujols as being more valuable this year, but we'll see.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

IMO, your analogies don't really work.

 

Baseball has a body of work here that has over 100 years of history to base this upon. This history, IMO, makes your analogies superfluous.

 

If you want to use historical perspective, then Pujols should definitely win.

 

The fact is there really is no historical perspective. Alex Rodriquez and Andre Dawson won while playing for last place teams. Other players, however seem to have benefited from playing for play-off teams.

 

Bonds won it last year and his team missed the playoffs.

 

You can't simply apply a historical significance, because the voters have voted all over the map.

[gus_dog]

IMO, your analogies don't really work.

 

Baseball has a body of work here that has over 100 years of history to base this upon. This history, IMO, makes your analogies superfluous.

 

If you want to use historical perspective, then Pujols should definitely win.

 

I'm pretty sure that's what I wrote :?:

[K-Town]

IMO, your analogies don't really work.

 

Baseball has a body of work here that has over 100 years of history to base this upon. This history, IMO, makes your analogies superfluous.

 

If you want to use historical perspective, then Pujols should definitely win.

 

The fact is there really is no historical perspective. Alex Rodriquez and Andre Dawson won while playing for last place teams. Other players, however seem to have benefited from playing for play-off teams.

 

Bonds won it last year and his team missed the playoffs.

 

You can't simply apply a historical significance, because the voters have voted all over the map.

 

Bonds won last year because nobody else was close (not even Pujols).

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but historically, if there are two candidates that put up similar stats, the guy on the winning team will win.

[K-Town]

IMO, your analogies don't really work.

 

Baseball has a body of work here that has over 100 years of history to base this upon. This history, IMO, makes your analogies superfluous.

 

If you want to use historical perspective, then Pujols should definitely win.

 

I'm pretty sure that's what I wrote :?:

 

OK. I was probably too stupid to figure it out. I agree with you, then.

[UK1679666180]

NL-Lee

AL-Rodriguez

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Consider that Dale Murphy won two MVPs for a very lack luster Braves team in the 1980's or Andre Dawson's MVP in 1987, and its clear that making the playoffs isn't a requirement for being considered "valuable."

 

On the other hand, we'll find other MVP's that seem to have vaulted up the voting based on the performance of their teams.

 

There is no historical precedent set with the MVP.

 

Based on the stats, Lee is the most valuable player. Will he win? I don't think so. The national consensus seems to point toward Jones or Pujols. I don't agree with that either.

[gus_dog]

IMO, your analogies don't really work.

 

Baseball has a body of work here that has over 100 years of history to base this upon. This history, IMO, makes your analogies superfluous.

 

If you want to use historical perspective, then Pujols should definitely win.

 

The fact is there really is no historical perspective. Alex Rodriquez and Andre Dawson won while playing for last place teams. Other players, however seem to have benefited from playing for play-off teams.

 

Bonds won it last year and his team missed the playoffs.

 

You can't simply apply a historical significance, because the voters have voted all over the map.

 

Oh, I disagree. Historically speaking, the award has been given to the most valuable player on a playoff team, UNLESS there is another player on a non-playoff team who is so outstanding, and so valuable (such as Bonds or Dawson were) that they cannot be outdone. Perception or reality, that is how I recall it.

 

Historically, the voters have placed more emphasis on offencive performance and the candidate's team making the post-season.

 

There has been an occasional exception, here and there, but I believe this year's candidates for NLMVP fit in this mold where there are two obviously deserving candidates, but only one of them on a playoff team. If Lee would have blown Pujols' away in EVERY catagory, then I could see the injustice, but he did not maintain the huge lead he had.

 

Again, I wish Lee would win, because I hate the Cardinals and love the Cubbies, but realistically speaking, it's Pujols' prize - this season anyway.

 

JMHO

[K-Town]

NL-Lee

AL-Rodriguez

 

I could live with that.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

1983 gives us a decent case study.

 

The Dodgers won the NL West with a 91-71 record. Pedro Guerrero hit 298/373/531 with 32 HR, 100 RBI and 116 RC.

 

The Braves finished second in the NL West. Dale Murphy hit 302/393/540 with 36 Hr, 121 RBI, and 126 RC.

 

Murphy had better numbers and won the MVP. Some might argue Guerrero's numbers were close enough and his team made the playoffs, but the voters rewarded the best player regardless of post season appearances.

 

While Lee and Pujols are close, Lee still has the better numbers, even if it is slightly better. Go with the better numbers, and Lee is the MVP.

[K-Town]

If you strictly go by the numbers, then Lee would have to win, because his overall numbers are slightly better.

 

I'm not sure if you can go strictly by the numbers, however. Alot of people have the perception that Pujols' presence in the lineup and the clubhouse makes those around him much better, while I don't think that Lee has necessarily earned that reputation yet.

 

Like I said, I wouldn't have a major problem with Lee winning.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If you strictly go by the numbers, then Lee would have to win, because his overall numbers are slightly better.

 

I'm not sure if you can go strictly by the numbers, however. Alot of people have the perception that Pujols' presence in the lineup and the clubhouse makes those around him much better, while I don't think that Lee has necessarily earned that reputation yet.

 

Like I said, I wouldn't have a major problem with Lee winning.

 

Maybe this is a situation where we can hope for a tie as occured in 1979 where Stargell and Hernandez tied for the MVP. Stargell played for the first place Pirates and Hernandez for the third place Cardinals.

 

Of course when you look at the numbers, Dave Parker seemed to have better numbers than either Stargell or Hernandez. :shrug:

[Exile on Waveland]

I wasn't basing my choice on history. If I was guessing who'd win the award, I'd go with Jones based on his old-school, media-friendly counting numbers.

 

I would vote for Pujols. Lee was the better player this season, but his value was to the Cubs, while Pujols' value was to the Cardinals. I think there's a difference, but it's just my opinion.

[gus_dog]

If you strictly go by the numbers, then Lee would have to win, because his overall numbers are slightly better.

 

I'm not sure if you can go strictly by the numbers, however. Alot of people have the perception that Pujols' presence in the lineup and the clubhouse makes those around him much better, while I don't think that Lee has necessarily earned that reputation yet.

 

Like I said, I wouldn't have a major problem with Lee winning.

 

Maybe this is a situation where we can hope for a tie as occured in 1979 where Stargell and Hernandez tied for the MVP. Stargell played for the first place Pirates and Hernandez for the third place Cardinals.

 

Of course when you look at the numbers, Dave Parker seemed to have better numbers than either Stargell or Hernandez. :shrug:

 

I would be pleased with a tie.

[Catman61]

1983 gives us a decent case study.

 

The Dodgers won the NL West with a 91-71 record. Pedro Guerrero hit 298/373/531 with 32 HR, 100 RBI and 116 RC.

 

The Braves finished second in the NL West. Dale Murphy hit 302/393/540 with 36 Hr, 121 RBI, and 126 RC.

 

Murphy had better numbers and won the MVP. Some might argue Guerrero's numbers were close enough and his team made the playoffs, but the voters rewarded the best player regardless of post season appearances.

 

While Lee and Pujols are close, Lee still has the better numbers, even if it is slightly better. Go with the better numbers, and Lee is the MVP.

EXCEPT that that 83 Braves team was 2nd place in a 6 team division, just 3 games behind the Dodgers and had a winning record (88-74) In this case, Lee was on a team that finished 4th in a 6 team division and finished under .500

[Catman61]

Just to be clear, it would be hard to argue if Lee was voted as MVP.

 

I also think that Jones deserves no better than 3rd (distant 3rd)