David Wright- MVP?

[nymr83]

]I'd put more stock in those predictions if a) Gwynn had ever won an MVP

what the heck does that have to do with it?

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

My knock on Gwynn's comments is that he has three spaces -- and lists four players.

Dude, if you have four names, then list four spaces. You have a tie vote, so man up and pick either Rollins or Utley. If you can't decide between the two, then neither are worthy.

As for Wright, he deserves it.

But, Mets almost always get screwed in MVP voting. Seaver got hosed in 69, Carter in 1986, and -- perhaps the biggest outrage -- Darryl losing to Dirty Kirk in 1988.

I like Prince Fielder. I hope he can keep it together. But I watched his Dad play in Detroit, and it was such a shame because the guy just ballooned and probably lost years off his career. Prince is already a big kid. I just hope he doesn't go Mo Vaughn/Kevin Mitchell.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Carter in 1986?

He was a more worthy candidate in 1985, I think, although if I remember correctly, my MVP hopes that winter were directed towards Doc Gooden.

Keith in 1984 had a real shot, but I won't quarrel with Sandberg winning it. That probably could have gone either way.

[DocTee]

isn't there a recently-minted Hank Arraon Award for the best hitter in each league?

[Guest Edgy DC]

it's pretty established, highly broken, hilghly disregarded, and needs to be fixed. Hank Aaron should be pissed.

[nymr83]

he shouldn't be there when they give out the award

[Valadius]

Baseball-Reference hasn't updated its stats to show yesterday's games, but as of yesterday, in the National League, David Wright was:

1st in times on base
2nd in runs created
3rd in OPS+ and power/speed number
5th in OBP
6th in runs scored and hits
7th in total bases, stolen bases, and walks
8th in RBI and OPS
9th in batting average and games played
10th in plate appearances

[Guest cooby]

="soupcan"]A kid came to my door almost two years ago selling magazine subscriptions. He was a nice kid so I bought a few from him even though he represented no magazines that I read at the time. I wound up with two-year subscriptions to The Sporting News, Metropolitan Home (I live in the suburbs) and Cooking Light (yeah, right). I know it was almost two years ago because thankfully, The Sporting News subscription is about to lapse. I used to subscribe to TSN when I was in high school and I loved it. I was living in California at the time and it was really my only source of regular Mets news. It was printed on newsprint and was just chock full of baseball news. In those days it still was 'The Baseball Bible'. These last two years have just shown me how far it as fallen. Baseball is a sidenote to the NASCAR coverage and the writing is like ESPN The Magazine which is geared to people much younger than me. Not only do I rarely open up TSN when it comes every week but I usually just toss it right in the garbage without even looking at it.

Was he selling The New Yorker? Those kids never seem to be selling The New Yorker.

Absolute ditto on TSN by the way. Do they still have Caught on the Fly? That was the beginning of the end for me.

[Vic Sage]

Edgy DC wrote: And I've long questioned how you can decry that sportswriters are construing the award more narrowly than its intent, when you insist on construing it more narrowly than its intent.

i don't include pitchers in my personal consideration for the MVP because

1) when the MVP was created in 1911, there was no cy young award, so it was appropriate to consider both players and pitchers;

2) but pitchers have had a prestigious award that recognizes their accomplishment since 1956, and hitters don't, and

3) therefore, i exclude them from consideration as a protest against the fact of #2.

Once hitting is separately acknowledged in the same way as pitching (and as you acknowlege, the Aaron award hardly accomplishes that), then I'd be happy to see the MVP go to anybody the writers felt deserving.

[metirish]

Yeah the Hank Aaron award doesn't rate at all,when the booth was talking about this the other night it didn't even rate a mention.Keith said winning the PoTY that time (79) was a "huge honor and surprise",PoTH they felt could be the best all round player in the league separate from MVP....last night Gary asked if the fans should vote for the MVP and Keith shouted "hell no they make a mess of the All-Star team..............."

[Guest Edgy DC]

I understand your position, but I don't think that's the appropriate way to protest. Use your lobbying to fix the appropriate award, which is growing in prestige even if it's absolutely being decided in an improper manner.

Two guys are up for a Nobel Peace Prize. One is a doctor and one is an engineer. It would be unjust to award it to the engineer simply because doctors have their own Nobel Prize in Medicine and engineers don't.

The world would be robbed because the paragon of peace placed before them by a supposedly informed body is the wrong guy.

The National League's very first MVP was Dazzy Vance. So when you say:

There is a pitcher of the year award, there is an award for defense at each position, but how can their not be a hitter of the year in each league?

well, of course, there was such an award.... that was what the mvp was created for.

...that's just untrue.

[duan]

in VORP terms David Wright has had the best season by a met ever (and a late season tear would increase his lead too).

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Wouldn't the Silver Slugger Awards be the hitters equivalent of the Gold Glove Award for defense? Still, I think a PoTY Award would be good idea. It would provide a chance to reward excellence in individual performance without concern for the quality of the team for which the individual plays.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Correctly rewarding the outstanding batsman, or outstanding offensive player is what is needed.

Creating a Player of the Year Award, and relegting MVP to include only hitters, would make it what it never was and never was meant to be, and reward the intransigence of those voters who tried to make it so.

[bmfc1]

I agree that a distinct award is needed to separate "the best season" from "the most valuable player." Keep the "MVP" award for "value"--if your team finishes last, perhaps you weren't that valuable since your team would have finished last without you. Have "The Babe Ruth Award" for the AL and "The Hank Aaron Award" for the NL to honor the batter who has the best season. For those, it doesn't matter if your team stinks.

[Frayed Knot]

And it's not like the decision is going to be made any easier by the top candidates limping towards the finish line.

Stats for September:

>

Player	AB	Hits	BA	OBA	SLG	HRs	Runs	RBI
Holliday	81	29	.358	.432	.852	12	24	26
Rollins	111	31	.279	.316	.532	6	17	15
Wright	88	30	.341	.422	.636	6	16	18
Fielder	80	29	.363	.474	.800	11	22	22

[Guest Edgy DC]

I disagree that a player on a last-place team lacks the value of a player offering the same performance on a first-place team.

[HahnSolo]

Valadius wrote: Baseball-Reference hasn't updated its stats to show yesterday's games, but as of yesterday, in the National League, David Wright was: 1st in times on base 2nd in runs created 3rd in OPS+ and power/speed number 5th in OBP 6th in runs scored and hits 7th in total bases, stolen bases, and walks 8th in RBI and OPS 9th in batting average and games played 10th in plate appearances

I just checked Holliday:

1st in Hits, Total Bases, Doubles, RBI, Runs Created, Extra Base Hits
2nd in Batting Average, Slugging pct.
4th in Runs Scored, Home Runs, OPS, Times on Base
9th in OBP, Plate Appearances

It's Game and Set, and Holliday is serving for the Match.

[nymr83]

]I disagree that a player on a last-place team lacks the value of a player offering the same performance on a first-place team

i think theres some, though not much, merit to the argument that the guy who helped his team reach the playoffs did it under tougher pressure than the guy who was in last place... though that works equally well against the guy who ran away with his division. i'm willing to say that "playoff team" should be something of a tiebreaker, but a clearly better season shouldnt be disregarded because the team didn't finish well.

[Valadius]

I think the stat to keep an eye on is going to be runs created. Currently it's:

1. Holliday 144
2. Wright 142
3. Fielder 140
4. H. Ramirez 138
T-5. Rollins 129
T-5. Utley 129

[Guest Edgy DC]

Nymr83 wrote: ]I disagree that a player on a last-place team lacks the value of a player offering the same performance on a first-place team i think theres some, though not much, merit to the argument that the guy who helped his team reach the playoffs did it under tougher pressure than the guy who was in last place...

Some.

Nymr83 wrote: though that works equally well against the guy who ran away with his division.

Good point. These guys aren't oft penalized.

Nymr83 wrote: i'm willing to say that "playoff team" should be something of a tiebreaker, but a clearly better season shouldnt be disregarded because the team didn't finish well.

Is there merit to crediting a guy who is grinding it out, maintiaining a standard of excellence on a flailing team, with going-nowhere teammates and sparse and apathetic crowds, with little to motivate him to continually push beyond the apparent limits of his excellence, save his deep sense of professionalism, determination, and refusal to accept last place when even fourth is attainable --- who gives those paying customers his all with no ring on the line, but respect for the game and the sacrifice they made to come see him play?

I think some.

How about respect for the guy who goes out there with the pressure of knowing that --- unlike players on first-place teams --- if he has a bad day, it's far less likely that a teammate will pick him up?

I think some.

Value is value. A guy adds ten games to his team's win total, I don't care if they were wins 41-50 or 111-120.

His team is too oft a matter of circumstance. The professional credit he gets shouldn't be.

[TransMonk]

I really don't have a clear cut favorite to tell you the truth. I am really enjoying the fact that the NL is producing a bunch of new young superstars instead of the same boring Bonds/Pujols race it seems we've had for the past decade.

For me the race is between, in no particular order: Fielder, Holliday and Wright with Rollins being a not as close 4th. I think all of them have valid arguments for being MVP. IMO, and I'm no Tony Gwynn, I think Wright as the least arguments against him. That being said, I wouldn't be disappointed if any of Fielder, Holliday or Wright ended up winning.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Nearsighted, but every time Utley swings a bat against the Mets, I'm convinced he's the best player in the league.

[Vic Sage]

Edgy DC wrote: Correctly rewarding the outstanding batsman, or outstanding offensive player is what is needed. Creating a Player of the Year Award, and relegting MVP to include only hitters, would make it what it never was and never was meant to be, and reward the intransigence of those voters who tried to make it so.

but i propose the opposite of your strawman proposal. I propose an appropriate award for best hitter, so MVP can go back to awarding best player (hitter or pitcher, winning team or not), as it was originally intended.

When the MVP was created in 1911, Cobb and Shulte both won it while playing for 2nd place teams. So there was no limitation on the award, from its inception, to giving it only to players from playoff teams. And, until 1956, the award was appropriately given to both hitters and pitchers

But since the creation of the cy young award in 1956, pitchers have been eligible for 2 awards for the same season of production, while hitters have been limited to one. That is inherently inequitable.

the silver slugger doesn't address the issue because it gives 18 awards, arbitarily given by position, that might be ignoring many of the best hitters in each league, simply because there may be a hitter at their particular position that was better. To award a catcher over superior hitters at other positions, for example, doesn't really address the current underlying inequity.

if Aaron and Ruth awards were promoted to the level of the cy young, that would be the answer, but so far that has not happened. And until it does, i continue my pointless little protest which takes the form only of being argumentative on the subject.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I was wondering how you raise the stature of an award? How do you make people care?

Does MLB hold a bigger or better press conference for the Cy Young award than they do for the Hank Aaron? Or does MLB treat them both the same, but the press ignores one and gets excited over the other?

[Vic Sage]

why would the press care about the best pitcher more than best hitter?

its just that CYA has been around for 50 years and the Aaron is of recent origin. The award is of such a low profile that even industry professionals like Mets announcers don't know it exists and express longing for an award other than the MVP that would recognize great seasons by somebody other than those on playoff teams.

If MLB were to hold a press conference and say that because sportswriters have not been voting in a way consistent with the spirit of the award, MLB will reformat the "hitter of the year" award for both leagues, and the CY, too, to take into consideration quantitative analysis, and that they will then clarify that the MVP is open to any hitter or pitcher and, while value will be determined subjectively, voters are prohibited from excluding players from consideration solely based on the performance of their teams.

I think such a press conference would get much play in the media. But MLB will never do it. They like the vagueness, and the arguments, and don't give a $hit about the inherent inequities of their current system.

[Valadius]

The way the Aaron award has been managed is ludicrous. Arbitrarily come up with finalists? Let the idiot masses vote on it and screw it up like they do All-Star selections? Please. I'd turn it into something the players and/or managers vote on, making sure that they can't vote for a teammate.

[Vic Sage]

i wouldn't have it be decided by a vote at all! let a committtee hash out a SABRmetric formula for both, so they're both objectively decided.

Then, let the reporters continue to do the MVP voting, using whatever narrow, anecdotal, subjective, parochial criteria they wish to employ, so long as they do not create determinative criteria like "no pitchers" or "no DHs" or "from playoff teams only".

[nymr83]

i'd have no problem with that, as longas the formula was a good one and not "highest SLG% wins" or something

[Guest Edgy DC]

Vic Sage wrote: ="Edgy DC"]Correctly rewarding the outstanding batsman, or outstanding offensive player is what is needed. Creating a Player of the Year Award, and relegting MVP to include only hitters, would make it what it never was and never was meant to be, and reward the intransigence of those voters who tried to make it so. but i propose the opposite of your strawman proposal.

I was responding to the post before mine.