End of season MVP Discussion

UK1679666180 · October 4, 2005

This should be an award based on production of an individual player not the team, unless there is some extreme example of player being a hindrance (Cabrera) or lifting his team to greater heights based on his leadership/intangible skills (never happened in the reg. season). I don't think neither Lee or Pujols demostrated either of those qualities enough over/under one another to outweigh the production difference between Lee and Pujols, as slight or as great as that might be.

Andy · October 5, 2005

I'll risk the flak from everyone by picking Andruw Jones. Stats aside, he carried the Braves through a very tough stretch this season. And I'm pretty sure he did it without a consistent 30-homer guy protecting him in the lineup. With all due respect to Derrek Lee's and Albert Pujols's great seasons, Andruw had such an impact on his team's run this year that it can't be ignored.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that whoever finishes third this year is one of the greatest third-place finishers in the history of this award.

UK1679666180 · October 5, 2005

Regardless, I think we can all agree that whoever finishes third this year is one of the greatest third-place finishers in the history of this award.

The greatest 3rd place finisher is probably Gentile in '61 behind Maris/Mantle.

treebird · October 5, 2005

if lee wins the mvp, he'll just be more expensive when it's time to re-sign him

go pujols

hardcorecubfan · October 5, 2005

Lee:
BRAA: 74
FRAA: 14
Net: 88

Pujols:
BRAA: 71
FRAA: 2
Net: 73

forgive my ignorance thes anacronyms allude me...like a lot of thing what is BRAA and FRAA?

vance_the_cubs_fan · October 5, 2005

Lee:
BRAA: 74
FRAA: 14
Net: 88

Pujols:
BRAA: 71
FRAA: 2
Net: 73

forgive my ignorance thes anacronyms allude me...like a lot of thing what is BRAA and FRAA?

Batting Runs Above Average and Fielding Runs Above Average

wolf stansson · October 5, 2005

MVP to Pujols
Hank Aaron award to Lee

Silver Slugger - Lee

I think the AL will be the more compelling race. A-Rod plays defense and is a complete player whereas Ortiz's clutchness is just stupid. Anybody know his stats in late innings of close games? Unreal. Alejandro of course is another story all together.

A-Rod, who waited until the Yanks were up 6-2 before he ripped a long home run, then followed that up with two more big hits. The weird thing about A-Rod is that there's nobody more terrifying in a big game ... when you're down by 4 runs. There really isn't. It's like he goes to another level.

I think that says it well.

EastonBlues22 · October 6, 2005

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)

That post just about sums it up for me. As long as Jones doesn't win, I can make my peace with the decision.

EastonBlues22 · October 6, 2005

I'll risk the flak from everyone by picking Andruw Jones. Stats aside, he carried the Braves through a very tough stretch this season. And I'm pretty sure he did it without a consistent 30-homer guy protecting him in the lineup.

You are aware that Pujols has had such standouts as Taguchi and Molina batting fourth behind him this year because Edmonds has often been batting #2 and Sanders has been hurt for an extended period of time, right?

The two guys who were supposed to protect him from the #4 slot this year:

Edmonds production from the #4 slot:

266 AB, .267 AVG, .912 OPS, 14 HR, 43 RBI

Sanders:

114AB, .298 AVG, .893 OPS, 6 HR, 22 RBI

Together they accounted for only 63% of the ABs by #4 hitters for the Cards.

Combined production from the #4 spot in the order from the Cardinals (along with the rank in the NL for each stat).

.273 Avg (8th out of 16)

.864 OPS (5th)

28 HR (9th)

103 RBI (9th)

The bottom line is that it's not exactly like Pujols had Manny Ramirez hitting behind him...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the "Jones had no help in the lineup" argument...

As a team, ATL had more HRs, more total bases, and a higher OPS than StL did. They also had a higher OPS than the Cubs. When you consider that the OPSs for Pujols and Lee were much higher than that of Jones, you would expect their teams' OPSs to be higher than ATL's as well if they were really had better hitters helping them out on offense. Since they aren't, that can only mean that ATL actually had the better hitting team this year statistically.

Funny how that works out.

DonnieD · October 6, 2005

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'm assuming you mean Dave Winfield, because Dave Parker did not have a particularly stellar year in '79. 1978 was a different story, but he won it that year. Personally, I think Dave Kingman should have been the MVP in 1979 and it really shouldn't have been close.

Hopefully that is not indicative of how Lee will finish in the balloting. Although Lee's year was better than Kingman's they do parallel each other. Both played for Cubs teams that finished a few games under .500 and toward the bottom of their division and both had the best season in their league statistically.

By the way, talk about questionable voting. The MVP voters in 1979 had to have been on drugs. Kingman deserved it, and ended up in 11th place. In the AL, Fred Lynn got robbed of the award, he had by far the best season and he finished 4th in the balloting. What a JOKE.

sonofsamiam · October 6, 2005

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'm assuming you mean Dave Winfield, because Dave Parker did not have a particularly stellar year in '79. 1978 was a different story, but he won it that year. Personally, I think Dave Kingman should have been the MVP in 1979 and it really shouldn't have been close.

Hopefully that is not indicative of how Lee will finish in the balloting. Although Lee's year was better than Kingman's they do parallel each other. Both played for Cubs teams that finished a few games under .500 and toward the bottom of their division and both had the best season in their league statistically.

By the way, talk about questionable voting. The MVP voters in 1979 had to have been on drugs. Kingman deserved it, and ended up in 11th place. In the AL, Fred Lynn got robbed of the award, he had by far the best season and he finished 4th in the balloting. What a JOKE.

I don't know how in the world anyone could argue Kingman deserved the MVP in '79. His Adjusted OPS wasn't even Top 5 in the NL, and that's where ALL his value was. The guy was an utter butcher in the field. There's really no comparison between Kingman '79 and Lee '05.

Better cases can be made for Winfield, Schmidt, and yes, Hernandez.

I agree that Lynn should've run away with it in the AL, though.

DonnieD · October 6, 2005

I don't know how in the world anyone could argue Kingman deserved the MVP in '79. His Adjusted OPS wasn't even Top 5 in the NL, and that's where ALL his value was. The guy was an utter butcher in the field. There's really no comparison between Kingman '79 and Lee '05.

Better cases can be made for Winfield, Schmidt, and yes, Hernandez.

I agree that Lynn should've run away with it in the AL, though.

I admittedly put a lot of stock in “traditional” stats, probably more than many people around here. However, I love rate stats and put even more emphasis on them. But I won’t jump on the bandwagon of some of these newer stats and suddenly determine that they are the most important stat to look at, especially when I can’t figure it for myself or even know how it is figured.

Kingman was first in the league in REAL OPS, not to mention HR, SLG, and 2nd in RBI, all while hitting a not too shabby .288 which was 35 points higher than Schmidt.

You can’t seriously think the voters in 1979 considered his 6th place finish in Adjusted OPS+ when they cast their votes.

sonofsamiam · October 6, 2005

I don't know how in the world anyone could argue Kingman deserved the MVP in '79. His Adjusted OPS wasn't even Top 5 in the NL, and that's where ALL his value was. The guy was an utter butcher in the field. There's really no comparison between Kingman '79 and Lee '05.

Better cases can be made for Winfield, Schmidt, and yes, Hernandez.

I agree that Lynn should've run away with it in the AL, though.
I admittedly put a lot of stock in “traditional” stats, probably more than many people around here. However, I love rate stats and put even more emphasis on them. But I won’t jump on the bandwagon of some of these newer stats and suddenly determine that they are the most important stat to look at, especially when I can’t figure it for myself or even know how it is figured.

Kingman was first in the league in REAL OPS, not to mention HR, SLG, and 2nd in RBI, all while hitting a not too shabby .288 which was 35 points higher than Schmidt.

You can’t seriously think the voters in 1979 considered his 6th place finish in Adjusted OPS+ when they cast their votes.

No, I'm sure they considered his horrible fielding and league-leading strikeouts as well, not to mention the Cubs being in 5th place. (Writers opinion, not mine.)

The thing is, other than HRs and RBI, Kingman didn't really lead in anything in '79. Hernandez (much as I hate him) was a more deserving winner, especially from a more sabermetric point-of-view, whether the writers knew this or not.

And Stargell, of course, was a sentimental choice. "We Are Family", and all.

EDIT: And as far as real vs. adjusted OPS, neither really matters as far as the voters go -- I'm sure few paid attention to OPS at all. However, adjusted is a much more accurate number, as Wrigley is a heck of a hitter's park. Also, as far as Schmidt goes -- yes, he had a lower BA than Kingman, but he also had 120 walks (75 more than Kingman) and won a deserved Gold Glove. I stand by him having more value than Kingman in '79.

gus_dog · October 6, 2005

...as Wrigley is a heck of a hitter's park.

I, as well as many others, disagree with this assertion. Wrigley CAN be a hitters park, but it can also be a pitchers park.

Overall, it is very close to neutral, or slightly leaning towards a hitters park, IMO. Not a 'heck of a hitter's park'.

Tim · October 6, 2005

...as Wrigley is a heck of a hitter's park.

I, as well as many others, disagree with this assertion. Wrigley CAN be a hitters park, but it can also be a pitchers park.

Overall, it is very close to neutral, or slightly leaning towards a hitters park, IMO. Not a 'heck of a hitter's park'.

Back in the 70's, Wrigley was a heck of a hitter's park. Compared to the caverns of the day, anyway. With the bandboxes of the past 20 years, Wrigley is fairly neutral when compared with other parks. But not back then.

gus_dog · October 6, 2005

...as Wrigley is a heck of a hitter's park.

I, as well as many others, disagree with this assertion. Wrigley CAN be a hitters park, but it can also be a pitchers park.

Overall, it is very close to neutral, or slightly leaning towards a hitters park, IMO. Not a 'heck of a hitter's park'.
Back in the 70's, Wrigley was a heck of a hitter's park. Compared to the caverns of the day, anyway. With the bandboxes of the past 20 years, Wrigley is fairly neutral when compared with other parks. But not back then.

But even back then, the wind blowing in would make it seem cavernous.

chopsx9 · October 6, 2005

This should be an award based on production of an individual player...

Why? That's what the Hank Aaron award is for.

I am a firm believer that it does not have to be based on pure stats.

I don't think the painting example holds water. Thats like saying Pujols deserves it because he makes more money. Monetary Value and utilitarian value are not the same thing.

UK1679666180 · October 6, 2005

The Hank Aaron award goes to the best hitter, you can make a case for Pujols being a better hitter than Lee moreso than Pujols being more valuable than Lee b/c Lee separates himself as the more valuable player moreso in the field than at the plate.

What did Pujols do that was more valuable than what Lee did for the Cubs?

The most productive player is the most valuable, unless the player is a total rectum like Cabrera in Florida or the other player is some omnipotent being who's mere presence in the clubhouse lifted the other 24 players to greater heights than they would've if he hadn't been there.

If you site the Cards record as well as the Cubs finishing below .500 are you trying to tell me the remaining 24 players on each roster are equal?

Or if you put Pujols on the Cubs, they would've finished above .500? Or, if Lee was on the Cards that they would not have made the post-season?

I'd give Lee the Hank Aaron award as well as the MVP.

K-Town · October 7, 2005

The Hank Aaron award goes to the best hitter, you can make a case for Pujols being a better hitter than Lee moreso than Pujols being more valuable than Lee b/c Lee separates himself as the more valuable player moreso in the field than at the plate.

What did Pujols do that was more valuable than what Lee did for the Cubs?

The most productive player is the most valuable, unless the player is a total rectum like Cabrera in Florida or the other player is some omnipotent being who's mere presence in the clubhouse lifted the other 24 players to greater heights than they would've if he hadn't been there.

If you site the Cards record as well as the Cubs finishing below .500 are you trying to tell me the remaining 24 players on each roster are equal?

Or if you put Pujols on the Cubs, they would've finished above .500? Or, if Lee was on the Cards that they would not have made the post-season?

I'd give Lee the Hank Aaron award as well as the MVP.

That's the point, if you start playing the "if" game, then everything changes. Who knows how well Lee would have hit in the Cards' lineup, or how well Pujols would have hit in the Cubs' lineup.

In general, I agree with you, UK. But when the numbers are relatively close, then I think you have to lean to the player who led his team to the playoffs, and the best record in baseball. There IS value in that. It's not Lee's fault, but maybe someday the roles will be reversed, and Lee will benefit from playing for a winning team.

"Value" isn't simply "value". It's not cut & dry.

A gallon of ice cream doesn't hold much value to an Eskimo, but a kid might spend a month's worth of allowance for it.

A pair of snow boots is worth more to an Eskimo than they are to a kid in southern California.

Why does a gallon of gas cost $2.50 in Missouri, but $3.10 in Chicago? It's the exact same gas. Shouldn't the value be exactly the same?

The context of everything DOES change it's value. That's not a new concept.

A great baseball player isn't as valuable to a non-contender as it is to a team trying to position themselves for the playoffs.

vance_the_cubs_fan · October 7, 2005

The Hank Aaron award goes to the best hitter, you can make a case for Pujols being a better hitter than Lee moreso than Pujols being more valuable than Lee b/c Lee separates himself as the more valuable player moreso in the field than at the plate.

What did Pujols do that was more valuable than what Lee did for the Cubs?

The most productive player is the most valuable, unless the player is a total rectum like Cabrera in Florida or the other player is some omnipotent being who's mere presence in the clubhouse lifted the other 24 players to greater heights than they would've if he hadn't been there.

If you site the Cards record as well as the Cubs finishing below .500 are you trying to tell me the remaining 24 players on each roster are equal?

Or if you put Pujols on the Cubs, they would've finished above .500? Or, if Lee was on the Cards that they would not have made the post-season?

I'd give Lee the Hank Aaron award as well as the MVP.

That's the point, if you start playing the "if" game, then everything changes. Who knows how well Lee would have hit in the Cards' lineup, or how well Pujols would have hit in the Cubs' lineup.

In general, I agree with you, UK. But when the numbers are relatively close, then I think you have to lean to the player who led his team to the playoffs, and the best record in baseball. There IS value in that. It's not Lee's fault, but maybe someday the roles will be reversed, and Lee will benefit from playing for a winning team.

"Value" isn't simply "value". It's not cut & dry.

A gallon of ice cream doesn't hold much value to an Eskimo, but a kid might spend a month's worth of allowance for it.

A pair of snow boots is worth more to an Eskimo than they are to a kid in southern California.

Why does a gallon of gas cost $2.50 in Missouri, but $3.10 in Chicago? It's the exact same gas. Shouldn't the value be exactly the same?

The context of everything DOES change it's value. That's not a new concept.

A great baseball player isn't as valuable to a non-contender as it is to a team trying to position themselves for the playoffs.

Did Pujols do that or what is it the combined efforts of him as well as Carpenter, Mulder, and company?

If you give Pujols the MVP since his efforts were so valuable, shouldn't that mean Clemens should get the Cy Young because he obviously did more to get his team to the post season than Carp? Carp had an "MVP" to help him, who did Clemens have?

When you say that Pujols had more value because he "led" his team, then you must in some form assume that the accomplishments of his team mates would be diminished without him. Or should the award be given to the best player on the best team?

K-Town · October 7, 2005

Did Pujols do that or what is it the combined efforts of him as well as Carpenter, Mulder, and company?

If you give Pujols the MVP since his efforts were so valuable, shouldn't that mean Clemens should get the Cy Young because he obviously did more to get his team to the post season than Carp? Carp had an "MVP" to help him, who did Clemens have?

When you say that Pujols had more value because he "led" his team, then you must in some form assume that the accomplishments of his team mates would be diminished without him. Or should the award be given to the best player on the best team?

Lots of good, fair questions.

The Cy Young discussion, I won't get into, because I'm not entirely convinced that Carpenter deserves it, anymore. I hope he wins it, but he pretty much crawled to the finish line.

Pujols was the offensive leader, and really the only consistent offensive threat, on a team that was 2nd in the NL in runs scored. He was clearly the offensive leader of the team.

Let me just re-emphasize that I won't be disgusted if Lee wins the MVP. Andruw Jones, on the other hand...........

UK1679666180 · October 7, 2005

In general, I agree with you, UK. But when the numbers are relatively close, then I think you have to lean to the player who led his team to the playoffs, and the best record in baseball. There IS value in that.

Don't buy it for a second, never have, never will.

I wasn't playing the "if" game, I was asking questions, questions that haven't been answered.

Lee was the best and most productive player, he was the most valuable.

When Lee becomes responsible for having 24 inferior players around than Pujols, I would say Pujols deserves it.

But, team accomplishment should not be factored in a award based on individual performance. Unless Pujols demostrated some unique leadership quality that lifted his spirits to higher levels over Lee, I don't buy the fact that Jocketty having a better year than Hendry determines the MVP vote.

(edit-spelling)

Edited October 7, 2005 by UK

K-Town · October 7, 2005

In general, I agree with you, UK. But when the numbers are relatively close, then I think you have to lean to the player who led his team to the playoffs, and the best record in baseball. There IS value in that.

Don't buy it for a second, never have, never will.

I wasn't playing the "if" game, I was asking questions, questions that haven't been answered.

Lee was the best and most productive player, he was the most valuable.

When Lee becomes responible for having 24 inferior players around than Pujols, I would say Pujols deserves it.

But, team accomplishment should not be factored in a award based on individual performance. Unless Pujols demostrated some unique leadership quality that lifted his spirits to higher levels over Lee, I don't buy the fact that Jocketty having a better year than Hendry determines the MVP vote.

That's fine, UK. I don't have a major problem with that philosophy.

vance_the_cubs_fan · October 7, 2005

I'm also in agreement with UK. Where analogies about "price" fail is that those things can only assign economic value. there is more to value than economic principles.

K-town, for example your analogy about the price of gas or snow shoes to a child in Alaska ignores the "cost" of moving commodities, etc. The "value" of those items doesn't necessarily change, there's just ineffieciencies in supply and demand based on locale.

Also, there are things that have value, but not "economic" value. How valuable is my daughter? How valuable is knowledge or happiness or health?

I know I made the mistake of doing it as well, but trying to use economic or any other analogy for value places us on slippery slope of not adjusting to other factors which are not congruent to the discussion.

I think the fairest and simples way to assign value is to look at the best individual performance and assign value to that.

Now if you want to debate the value of stats such as BA, HR, OBP, SLG, etc and how each should be weighted in determining the best player, that would be a discussion germaine to the topic. Observing the performance of a player's team mates to me should not be.

ManEatingTarp · October 7, 2005

This entire discussion is about philosophy.

What is Value?

We'll get the answer to this right after we figure out haw many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

My count of angels tells me.

Pujols=MVP

Lee=POY

If you use 1998 as a roadmap, this is what should happen.

End of season MVP Discussion

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs