K-Town

Good for Albert! There's no justification for Andruw finishing 2nd.

Dontrelle had more wins, and I thought that was the only important statistic. *sarcasm* Considering Carpenter pitched for the St. Louis Pujols and D-Train pitched for the Florida Fighting Lo Ducas that's even more impressive. He also had a lower ERA. ERA+ was almost identical (153 for Willis, 151 for Carpenter).

Proving that voters feel W-L is the most important pitching stat. This award is a complete joke. Willis should have won it hands down. How does THIS prove it? Clemens won it by the same standard, last year, and others have won in similar fashion in years past. If anything your point was "proven" years ago, not today.

I wasn't trying to post ignorantly, sorry. Back to baseball, wouldn't it be unfair to penalize a groundball pitcher who has a good strikeout:walk ratio but obviously doesn't strike out as many as a power pitcher who also has a good strikeout:walk ratio? Why would it be? Strikeouts are sure outs. Ground balls can produce base hits, advanced runners, or errors. It's not punishing one; it's rewarding the other, as it should be. Or, result in a double-play, which a strikeout surely won't. For the most part, an out is an out, regardless of how it's induced.

They do. King is angry because he DIDN'T get to play. Surely sitting on the greatest bullpen bench in the world surrounded by the greatest fans in the world sitting in the most historic ballpark in the world would be better than playing for someone else. Apparently so:

"Greater numbers" is an arbitrary thing. Pujols had more Win Shares, so give it to him. Not many more Win Shares..... granted, but I guess he shouldn't have to have "many more", by your logic. Alas, the MVP Award doesn't necessarily go to the player with the highest OPS every year. It goes to the player that the sportswriters feel helped their team the most (and I assume that things like leadership and such were taken into consideration, and not just on-field performance). Lee had a great year, but a player in his position winning the MVP Award is almost unprecedented. He may still win...... I wouldn't throw a fit if he did, but I doubt it.

That's a reasonable point. Do you want a guy who helps you score 10 runs in May, but only 2 in August, or do you want a guy who helps you score about 5 runs, consistently? This is an extremely weak point, actually. The flipside of it is equally true - I'm too lazy to do it, but if you look up the pre-all star break stats, I'm sure it will favor Lee just as much (in fact, moreso) as these favor Pujols. So Lee was significantly outperforming Pujols for the first 3/5 of the season, and Pujols outperformed Lee for the last 2/5 of the season. What's the big deal? Their Win Shares were equal (Pujols had slightly more). VORP was extremely close. Honestly, both players were outstanding, and it's difficult to assertain which one had the better year. Therefore, I'd give it to the guy who does it consistently (Pujols) or the guy who did it for a winning team (Pujols). If Lee had greatly out-performed Pujols, then he'd have a case. As it stands, I don't think he has a shot to win.

Presto. Good post. It's not all black & white.

Willis had more wins, but twice as many losses as Carpenter. There are alot of ways to look at it, and somebody's going to be unhappy, no matter who wins it. If you want to question the integrity of the award, don't start with Carpenter winning it this year (if he does). Go back to last year.

I'd still rank Clemens ahead of Pettitte, but he does make a good case for him. Pettitte was good. So was Clemens. So was Carpenter. Whoever wins, wins......... just like always. It's ALWAYS controversial, but a great pitcher wins every year.

I agree. Both stadiums are significant, for different reasons. I'm not sure why anyone would try to make an argument otherwise. Then why are you perpetuating the argument for one side? On second thought, don't answer that. This topic needs to die. I'm not perpetuating it "for one side". I'm saying that both stadiums are equally significant. Others have used words like "preposterous", and implied that it's funny that Cardinal fans are emotional over the whole thing. To me, it's not like that. Repeating a bad argument is perpetuating it. Busch has more for you. True. Wrigley has more for me. Also true. but there's a third aspect to this: to a neutral observer, which is more significant? If you were writing a history of baseball, which would feature more significantly? If you were writing a history of American pop-culture? Your third aspect isn't relevant to the context of the discussion that we were having, however.

I agree. Both stadiums are significant, for different reasons. I'm not sure why anyone would try to make an argument otherwise. Then why are you perpetuating the argument for one side? On second thought, don't answer that. This topic needs to die. I'm not perpetuating it "for one side". I'm saying that both stadiums are equally significant. Others have used words like "preposterous", and implied that it's funny that Cardinal fans are emotional over the whole thing. To me, it's not like that.

I agree. Both stadiums are significant, for different reasons. I'm not sure why anyone would try to make an argument otherwise.

Not if you are a Cubs fan. It's all relative brah. Bingo. It's too bad you didn't get that point when you made your original post. It would have saved me the trouble of explaining it to you. So you're saying I'm right? Because yes, in the championship department, the Cardinals organization has been more successful, but this wasn't about which has been the most "successful" organization, its about the fact that Busch isn't as important or historic of a ballpark as Wrigley. Are you actually reading these posts or do you just like to tell yourself that everyone agrees with you? Just asking. Don't worry, Wolf. It's just his subtle trolling which he has made a habit of doing. He's done it before and he'll do it again. When called on it, he'll try to backpedal and make excuses, but his true colors are evident. I've never backpedaled, and I've never made one excuse for anything. I'd love it if you could give us an example of me "making a habit" of doing so. This board is monitored (closely) by Cubs' fans. If I were "trolling", I'd be gone. Fortunately, the moderators are sharp enough to realize that simply having a different perspective isn't "trolling". And you're right, my true colors are evident. I've never attempted to hide them. There's nothing "subtle" about what I post.

Not if you are a Cubs fan. It's all relative brah. Bingo. It's too bad you didn't get that point when you made your original post. It would have saved me the trouble of explaining it to you. So you're saying I'm right? Because yes, in the championship department, the Cardinals organization has been more successful, but this wasn't about which has been the most "successful" organization, its about the fact that Busch isn't as important or historic of a ballpark as Wrigley. Are you actually reading these posts or do you just like to tell yourself that everyone agrees with you? Just asking. The original post implied that it was stupid to cry about Busch being demolished, but it wouldn't be stupid to cry about Wrigley being demolished. I took issue with THAT. From a Cardinals' perspective, there's every bit as much reason (or more) to cry about Busch being demolished. Why? Because many of us have fond memories from that stadium. Some folks want to bring up the "memories of Babe Ruth", as if they remember sitting in Wrigley Field, watching Babe Ruth point to........... something. I seriously doubt if anybody on this board was there for most of the World Series' at Wrigley Field, Gayle Sayers rushing for six touchdowns, etc. When people move out of their house, they don't cry because the house is "old", or because the house is in a memorable neighborhood. They cry because of the fond memories of thing that happened IN that house. From a historical perspective, Wrigley Field is significant. From a perspective of memories that might make someone emotional (which was the context of your original post, and mine), there's no reason to think that Wrigley is anymore significant than Busch.

Not if you are a Cubs fan. It's all relative brah. Bingo. It's too bad you didn't get that point when you made your original post. It would have saved me the trouble of explaining it to you. Double bingo. It's to bad you didn't end your post with "to me." then we wouldn't have spent time reading your ridiciulus argumetns why Busch stadium has more memories. The original post didn't end with "to me", so I responded in kind, just to make a point.

Not if you are a Cubs fan. It's all relative brah. Bingo. It's too bad you didn't get that point when you made your original post. It would have saved me the trouble of explaining it to you.

I didn't say "historically significant", so save your preposterousity for someone else. I said it has more memories. I should have said, more SIGNIFICANT memories. Some of you may not put much value in the historic significance of winning a baseball championships, but I disagree. Bob Gibson's 17 strikeouts in Game 1 of the '68 World Series comes to mind. Lou Brock's record-setting stolen base. Mark McGwire's record-setting home run. Boston's first World Championship since 1918. The fact that it's parked in the shadow of one of our country's most significant man-made features (the Arch), and just blocks from the Mighty Mississippi. Wrigley or Busch? It may be futile to argue one's significance over the other. They're both memorable, for different reasons. Keep in mind that I didn't start this banter. My point is that it's silly to make a post that implies that there would be reason to cry over Wrigley's demise, but not Busch's. THAT, my friend, is "preposterous".

Of course you'd have way more reason to be sad about Wrigley. Busch isn't exactly the baseball mecca that Wrigley is. Busch isn't as old, but probably holds more memories than Wrigley does. Do you just look to start arguments, or do you actually believe the stuff you type.... Are you serious, or blind? THAT is what started it, wouldn't you say? And yet I'm accused of "trolling", and "driveling". Some of you only see what you want to.

I got mine off of cards talk. Where do you get yours? Could you post them? Thanks! http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004_12_24_mlbcontracts_archive.html

Again, the salary numbers that you people are using aren't accurate. Where did they come from?

Of course you'd have way more reason to be sad about Wrigley. Busch isn't exactly the baseball mecca that Wrigley is. Busch isn't as old, but probably holds more memories than Wrigley does.

I think the implication is that A-rod may fall under Pete Rose - type suspicion, if he delves too deeply into gambling habits.

I think the idea is to unassemble the stadium, and sell the parts individually.

Let's not pretend that $92 mil is a "slap in the face". The Cards will easily be in the top 1/3 in all of baseball from a payroll standpoint, despite being bottom 1/3 in market size.