K-Town

Yeah, his avg was bad this year. And so was the Big Unit's ERA. Some guys have huge series, some guys have bad series. It happens. From year to year that changes. And over time it tends to even out, which to me is why it's silly to say things like choke/clutch. A guy making $25 mil isn't allowed a "bad year", even if it's just a few post-season games, in my opinion. When you're making that kind of money, and your team is fortunate enough to make the playoffs, you'd better be a "money player".

Ditto.

This site is very similar to the old Cards' Sports-Boards forum. The new one hasn't really taken off as well as the old one, but if any of you want to visit, here's the link: http://www.sports-boards.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24 It seems like most of the Cardinal traffic is at the Post Dispatch board, these days. It's hard for me to stomach much of that, though.

that and there's nothing else to do in Iowa :P Hey.........hey, hey.........watch that kind of talk :wink: Well there sure isn't much to do in your neck of the woods, I must admit. :P Being very serious here. There is more to do within 5 blocks of my house in Chicago than there was to do in the entire state of Iowa. It's a good place to raise kids, but that's about it. "Raising kids" is pretty substantial, probably more substantial than ANYTHING that's within 5 blocks of your house. Not to be argumentative, but what can you do within 5 blocks of your house that we can't do in Iowa? I was 22-26 when I lived in Des Moines. It was a very hard town for a young 20s person to live in. The town had a lot to offer if you were 12 years old or 35-75 years old, but very little for a recent college grad. Iowa is very conservative and I am not. What it comes down to is that I'm a city person and Iowa doesn't have any true cities. As far as things to do within 5 blocks of my house, that's not fair because I live in one of the best hoods in the greatest city in the world. I absolutely love Chicago, and I agree that it's one of the greatest cities in the world, if not THE greatest city in the world. I can see why you'd want to vacation there, but what does it have to offer (specifically), even downtown, that Des Moines or Iowa City don't offer, other than major sports teams (which is pretty relevant, actually)?

They're not heroes because they hit alot of balls over a fence. In some ways, many of them (including McGwire) are heroes because of what they do off of the field, however.

So you have those steroid test results from when Mac played and when Sammy was hitting 50+ out sitting next to you when you posted that? Oh wait...they didn't test then, so it's not a STONE COLD FACT is it? I'm not knocking you in any way, because I guarantee they both took roids, I'm just saying it's not a stone cold fact. I agree with you, although it is a fact that Sosa cheated.

Justin Jones was part of that deal too, wasn't he? He could still be a good one.

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?

Actually I think that's the Player of the Year award. The MVP should go to the best player that propelled their team to the playoffs imo. That said, I'm taking nothing away from Lee. He should get the POY. But who remembers who the "Player of the Year" was in any given year? That alone tells you the relative worth of that award. It pales in comparison to the MVP. Is that the treatment that the best player in the league in any given year should get? Essentially forgotten because a lesser performing player had a happier set of circumstances beyond his control and took the big one, the MVP? That's the whole point. Nobody cares if you were the best player on a 4th place team. That's a shame for Lee, but it's true. Not just the best player on a 4th placed team, but the best player in the entire league. In the entire league, the best player. In league entire, player best. Best league entire player. Best entire player league. Derrek Lee. 2005 (apparently he wasn't this good in 2004). Jeez, it not complicated, even me understand, me not even Yank. Best player in entire league. What does the fact that the best player in the entire league played on a 4th placed team say? It says that the teammates of this best player must have been pretty rubbish. Beyond that it says absolutely nothing. Besides that he's the best player. In the entire league. ....... but not necessarily the most valuable. In my opinion, of course (and many others). I looked up "value", and one of the definitions talks about "importance". Which player was more important this year, Lee or Pujols? Maybe that's how you should look at it. Because being the best player on a team that finished 4th isn't that important to some people. So have we established then that Derrek Lee was the best player in all of the National League in 2005? By some measures. Not by Win Shares, for instance.

I agree. I was being sarcastic.

Actually I think that's the Player of the Year award. The MVP should go to the best player that propelled their team to the playoffs imo. That said, I'm taking nothing away from Lee. He should get the POY. But who remembers who the "Player of the Year" was in any given year? That alone tells you the relative worth of that award. It pales in comparison to the MVP. Is that the treatment that the best player in the league in any given year should get? Essentially forgotten because a lesser performing player had a happier set of circumstances beyond his control and took the big one, the MVP? That's the whole point. Nobody cares if you were the best player on a 4th place team. That's a shame for Lee, but it's true. Not just the best player on a 4th placed team, but the best player in the entire league. In the entire league, the best player. In league entire, player best. Best league entire player. Best entire player league. Derrek Lee. 2005 (apparently he wasn't this good in 2004). Jeez, it not complicated, even me understand, me not even Yank. Best player in entire league. What does the fact that the best player in the entire league played on a 4th placed team say? It says that the teammates of this best player must have been pretty rubbish. Beyond that it says absolutely nothing. Besides that he's the best player. In the entire league. ....... but not necessarily the most valuable. In my opinion, of course (and many others). I looked up "value", and one of the definitions talks about "importance". Which player was more important this year, Lee or Pujols? Maybe that's how you should look at it. Because being the best player on a team that finished 4th isn't that important to some people.

Exactly. Never has been true, and probably never will be. It's an arbitrary thing. That's why it's voted on, rather than just punching the numbers into a computer. Someday, that might change. It hasn't yet. It should be done thru a computer and not some sportswriter who is voting on a team he either sees 6 times or 162 times a year as a beat writer. It makes it much easier for a sportswriter to look at the standings rather than looking deeper into the numbers. That's why the voting system is crap and it would be wrong if they didn't give it to Lee. That's fine. I think that calling balls & strikes by computer would be a higher priority, though. And instant replay. And some sort of formula to determine strength of schedule in case of a close Wild Card race....... just to be sure that the best teams get in. All of those things should be a priority over computerizing the MVP winner, because it's a team game, and those are the things that really matter.

Or everybody that looks at which player contributed more. As usual, yes. I think that everybody else just looks at "value" as being something different. I'm not sure any of us are right or wrong...... thank goodness we're all different, though. You're all a sharp group, I won't deny that. Like I said, I can see a case for Lee, and won't feel "cheated" if he wins.

Actually I think that's the Player of the Year award. The MVP should go to the best player that propelled their team to the playoffs imo. That said, I'm taking nothing away from Lee. He should get the POY. But who remembers who the "Player of the Year" was in any given year? That alone tells you the relative worth of that award. It pales in comparison to the MVP. Is that the treatment that the best player in the league in any given year should get? Essentially forgotten because a lesser performing player had a happier set of circumstances beyond his control and took the big one, the MVP? That's the whole point. Nobody cares if you were the best player on a 4th place team. That's a shame for Lee, but it's true.

Exactly. Never has been true, and probably never will be. It's an arbitrary thing. That's why it's voted on, rather than just punching the numbers into a computer. Someday, that might change. It hasn't yet.

Some of you take this more seriously than I do. I've said several times that I can understand a case for Lee. "Value" is ambiguous........ always has been. Everybody except for Cubs fans can see a case for Pujols over Lee, and that will be proven when the award is announced. That makes the rest of the world wrong, and you guys right. I'm not just plugging Pujols for the sake of plugging him (whoever the clever fellow was that called me Pujols mother should take note). I didn't think he deserved it last year, or the year before, because Bonds was far superior, and his team was a playoff contender. That's not the case this year. There are awards that Lee deserves. The MVP isn't one of them, in my opinion.

There's not much value in finishing 4th. That's not a biased opinion. It's what most of America believes, and probably what the majority of sports writers will determine. Maybe the majority of people are wrong, and you're right. It's not out of the question. "Value" is ambiguous, though. It's not necessarily black & white. And I'm not sure that Pujols had better teammates around him (other than the pitching). He spent much of the season with people like So Taguchi and Yadier Molina hitting behind him. I'm sure he would have preferred the protection of Aramis Ramirez, and might have benefitted from it.

Suppose Aladdin looked at his crystal ball and said. "Your team is going to finish in 4th place this year. Would you like Player Y at $7.66M, or would you like Player Z, for the league minimum". You'd probably take Player Z. Does that make him "more valuable" than Derrek Lee would have been? I'd like to pay $7.66M to finish in 4th place, instead of $400,000. That's what a vote for Derrek Lee boils down to.

In an imaginary world, yes. In reality, Player Y is playing for a 4th place team, and nobody cares if they won 1.6 games less. And in reality, the extra $3.39M would be fine if it were a one-year contract, but neither Pujols nor Lee have a one-year contract, and Pujols will live up to his contract every bit, or more, than Lee does.

Pujols was more valuable because, in reality, being the best player on a 4th place team is pretty unimportant. Is that Lee's fault? No. But quite frankly, they could have just as easily finished in 4th place with a lesser first baseman. He wasn't "important" to the Cubs. Pujols WAS "important" to the Cardinals. Yes, Lee is being punished for having weaker teammates. He'll be rewarded though (or should be) by the Hank Aaron Award, which is less ambiguious "Production" doesn't necessarily equal "value". But, I respect your opinion.

The difference is so slight that it's pretty much irrelevant. I'll give you that. Since they're that close, I'd give it to Pujols. I can see your point on the Cy Young thing, and I won't make a case for Carpenter. I honestly thought that Carpenter would finish strong while Clemens faded. That didn't happen, so if Carpenter loses out on the Cy Young Award, then I wouldn't be surprised. Right now, I'd rather see Pujols win the MVP than see Carpenter win the Cy Young Award. There is no "lifetime achievement award", and Pujols has been Bonds' bridesmaid for too many years, so it would be nice to see him rewarded for being so consistently good.

So basing post season awards on Win Shares, we have: NL MVP- Albert Pujols NL Cy Young- Roger Clemens AL MVP- Alex Rodriguez AL Cy Young- Mark Buherle or Santana (I'm not sure if one tenth of a win share is that significant and that's the difference between the two) I'm not saying that it should be based strictly on Win Shares, but that's a pretty solid list, isn't it? Obviously, I'd love for Carpenter to win the Cy Young, but I'm pretty disappointed in how he was used down the stretch, and how poorly he finished. I'd trade the Cy Young for a dominant post-season performance from him in a heartbeat. I don't think it should be based on Win Shares either, and countered with it to say that if you look simply at Pujols WS to give him the lead over Lee (difference of 1 WS or roughly 1/3 of a win), you should do the same in the CY Race where Clemens lead in pitching win shares over Carpenter is greater than Pujols's over Lee in overall win shares. I think win shares are a very encompassing stat, but when they are as close as they are in the case of Pujols and Lee, I look at other stats as well. Lee leads in RC and RC/G. I'm still going with Lee on this one. Both are deserving, but the stats seem to indicate Lee was the more (if slightly) productive and therefore valuable player. I'm not going to make the Cy Young argument. Like I said, Carpenter crawled to the finish line. So if you're trying to bait me on that, it ain't gonna happen. :wink: Win Shares don't tell everything, but they're a pretty solid measure. The fact that Pujols had slightly more Win Shares, and led his team to the best record in baseball, while the Cubs didn't finish .500.......... that's a pretty strong case for Pujols. A strong case can be made, and has been made, for Lee, also............ which I could live with. I'm honestly pretty worried about Andruw Jones winning it, though. That would be a shame.

So basing post season awards on Win Shares, we have: NL MVP- Albert Pujols NL Cy Young- Roger Clemens AL MVP- Alex Rodriguez AL Cy Young- Mark Buherle or Santana (I'm not sure if one tenth of a win share is that significant and that's the difference between the two) I'm not saying that it should be based strictly on Win Shares, but that's a pretty solid list, isn't it? Obviously, I'd love for Carpenter to win the Cy Young, but I'm pretty disappointed in how he was used down the stretch, and how poorly he finished. I'd trade the Cy Young for a dominant post-season performance from him in a heartbeat.

I don't think it's unreasonable to add a little context to the MVP Award. Pujols finished with more Win Shares than Lee, and Pujols helped his team to the playoffs, so I think he deserves it. If Lee wins it, I'll still be happy....... I like him. It's amazing to me that Brian Giles finished 3rd in Win Shares. He quietly had a terrific year.

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.