25 May 2007 17:03:00
Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

I always thought that Zoilo Versalles winning it over Tony Oliva in
1965 was a horrible move by the writers. What do you think?

I'd add Cal Ripken Jr. in '91 and A-Rod in '03, but obviously, that's
because I define the MVP by who makes his team better.



25 May 2007 20:44:59
Thomas R. Kettler
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

In article <1180137780.356499.10450@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >,
shabeki@gmail.com wrote:

> I always thought that Zoilo Versalles winning it over Tony Oliva in
> 1965 was a horrible move by the writers. What do you think?
>
> I'd add Cal Ripken Jr. in '91 and A-Rod in '03, but obviously, that's
> because I define the MVP by who makes his team better.

I'm sorry but those don't come close to the worst. Offhand, here are
worse ones:

1942 Joe Gordon over Ted Williams (Boston sportswriter refused to put
Williams on his ballot despite Triple Crown)

1947 Joe DiMaggio over Ted Williams (Again, Ted no MVP despite Triple
Crown)

1950 Phil Rizzuto (Many more deserving candidates than "The Scooter")

1973 Pete Rose over Tom Seaver (Tom Terrific had a 2.08 ERA)

1988 Kirk Gibson ("Veteran Influence" leading Dodgers)

1996 Juan Gonzalez over A-Rod (A-Rod 1st SS to win BA title in 5
decades; Seattle writers ignored him)

1998 Juan Gonzalez over A-Rod again (A-Rod's 40-40 season no MVP)

1999 I-Rod over Pedro (Pedro wins Pitcher's Triple Crown but people
deliberately keep him off battle since he's a pitcher)

2001 Ichiro over A-Rod (I'm sorry but I'd take A-Rod's season)

Remove blown from email address to replu.


26 May 2007 01:58:03
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

Thomas R. Kettler <tkettler@blownfuse.net > wrote:

> I'm sorry but those don't come close to the worst. Offhand, here are
> worse ones:
>
> 1942 Joe Gordon over Ted Williams (Boston sportswriter refused to put
> Williams on his ballot despite Triple Crown)

Stat fans focus on offense because defense doesn't really suit the
spreadsheet nearly as well. But Joe Gordon was an outstanding 2b.
He was a perennial all star and he made a first class contribution
both at the plate and on the field.

> 1947 Joe DiMaggio over Ted Williams (Again, Ted no MVP despite Triple
> Crown)

Same story. Even Williams admitted that DiMaggio was the better
player. There is much, much, more to baseball than hitting.
Clearly Williams was the better hitter but real sport fans then and
now know that hitting is only half the game. Not only was DiMaggio
much better defensively, but he was a joy to watch. Joe DiMaggio
attracted far more people to the ballpark than Ted Williams. In
fact, DiMaggio attracted as many fans to the park as any player in
the history of the game.

> 1950 Phil Rizzuto (Many more deserving candidates than "The Scooter")

Rizzuto batted .324 with 200 hits and he scored 125 runs. And this
was in the day before ss were supposed to be able to hit. Not only
was Rizzuto MVP in 1950, but he was also the Major League Player of
the Year, showing that his MVP was no fluke. Naturally the NYY won
the WS that year and Rizzuto, the consummate team player, led the AL
in sacrifice hits.

You seem to have a problem with the New York Yankees. There was a
reason they won every year. They had the best players.

> 1973 Pete Rose over Tom Seaver (Tom Terrific had a 2.08 ERA)

Pitchers have their own award. When hitters are allowed to compete
for the CY, only then should pitchers be allowed to compete for the
MVP. In any case, a player who plays every day is vastly more
valuable than a starting pitcher. Pete Rose led the league in hits,
plate appearances, and batting average. As part of the Big Red
Machine, Rose led his team to first place in their division and lost
the playoffs to the Mets in one of the most stunning upsets in
baseball history.

> 1988 Kirk Gibson ("Veteran Influence" leading Dodgers)

Although it didn't count in the MVP voting, Gibson showed his worth
in the first game of the WS against Eckersley and his team went on
to win the WS. Of course his leadership or "veteran influence" was
instrumental. Who remembers the shaving cream incident in the
Dodger pre-season? Stats don't tell the whole story.

> 1996 Juan Gonzalez over A-Rod (A-Rod 1st SS to win BA title in 5
> decades; Seattle writers ignored him)

47 home runs and 144 rbi in only 134 games. Amazing. Gonzalez
looked like the best hitter in the game in 1996. But ARod was
amazing. Part of the reason he didn't win is that Seattle finished
2nd to Texas that year. And also, ARod was only 20 years old.
There would be more chances for him in the years ahead unless he was
just a flash in the pan. Perhaps ARod might have been a better
pick. But Juan Gonzalez most certainly was not a bad pick that
year.

> 1998 Juan Gonzalez over A-Rod again (A-Rod's 40-40 season no MVP)

Texas won their division while Seattle was a distant 3rd with a
losing record. Gonzalez had monster power numbers. Meanwhile,
Garciaparra and Jeter finished 2nd and 3rd in the MVP vote while
ARod finished way back in 9th place.

> 1999 I-Rod over Pedro (Pedro wins Pitcher's Triple Crown but people
> deliberately keep him off battle since he's a pitcher)

How did IRod do in the CY voting that year?

> 2001 Ichiro over A-Rod (I'm sorry but I'd take A-Rod's season)

Suzuki led the league in hits (242!), BA, and stolen bases and he
was the best defensive RF in the game, all in his rookie season.
But more importantly, his team won 116 games while Texas finished in
last place. ARod finished 6th in MVP voting.

You are dead wrong on eight out of nine. You may have a case in
1996 only, but the first place finish of Texas that year put the
MVP out of reach for a Seattle Mariner.

cordially, as always,

rm


25 May 2007 19:44:47
Will in New Haven
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

On May 25, 9:58 pm, r...@biteme.org wrote:
> Thomas R. Kettler <tkett...@blownfuse.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry but those don't come close to the worst. Offhand, here are
> > worse ones:
>
> > 1942 Joe Gordon over Ted Williams (Boston sportswriter refused to put
> > Williams on his ballot despite Triple Crown)
>
> Stat fans focus on offense because defense doesn't really suit the
> spreadsheet nearly as well. But Joe Gordon was an outstanding 2b.
> He was a perennial all star and he made a first class contribution
> both at the plate and on the field.

He also never got to play in a home ballpark that wasn't torture for a
RH power hitter and he kept winning, at New York and at Cleveland. He
was certainly a worthy MVP. Did TW have a better year? Maybe. But not
being there to watch, I will submit to the judgment of their
contemporaries.

The real question for Gordon is the HoF. He was considered, by the
people who watched them, a better player than Bobby Doer, who is not
himself a bad Hall selection.

>
> > 1947 Joe DiMaggio over Ted Williams (Again, Ted no MVP despite Triple
> > Crown)
>
> Same story. Even Williams admitted that DiMaggio was the better
> player. There is much, much, more to baseball than hitting.
> Clearly Williams was the better hitter but real sport fans then and
> now know that hitting is only half the game. Not only was DiMaggio
> much better defensively, but he was a joy to watch. Joe DiMaggio
> attracted far more people to the ballpark than Ted Williams. In
> fact, DiMaggio attracted as many fans to the park as any player in
> the history of the game.


The case for Williams is pretty good. A fair corner outfielder,
however, has to outperform a great CF by a lot to be more valuable.
Williams was close enough to being that much better offensively that I
would not say that the voters were wrong had they picked him. DiMaggio
was good enough that I won't criticize them for picking him. Williams'
relations with the press were unfortunate. His teammates and managers
never seemed to have a problem with him.


> > 1950 Phil Rizzuto (Many more deserving candidates than "The Scooter")
>
> Rizzuto batted .324 with 200 hits and he scored 125 runs. And this
> was in the day before ss were supposed to be able to hit. Not only
> was Rizzuto MVP in 1950, but he was also the Major League Player of
> the Year, showing that his MVP was no fluke. Naturally the NYY won
> the WS that year and Rizzuto, the consummate team player, led the AL
> in sacrifice hits.

It was the only year that he played at that level, but that isn't
supposed to matter in the MVP voting. Williams and others opined that
the Scooter wsa the difference between the two teams. I disagree
because I think Junior Stevens was a very fine player but I wasn't
there.

> You seem to have a problem with the New York Yankees. There was a
> reason they won every year. They had the best players.
>
> > 1973 Pete Rose over Tom Seaver (Tom Terrific had a 2.08 ERA)
>
> Pitchers have their own award. When hitters are allowed to compete
> for the CY, only then should pitchers be allowed to compete for the
> MVP. In any case, a player who plays every day is vastly more
> valuable than a starting pitcher. Pete Rose led the league in hits,
> plate appearances, and batting average. As part of the Big Red
> Machine, Rose led his team to first place in their division and lost
> the playoffs to the Mets in one of the most stunning upsets in
> baseball history.

This 'Pitchers as MVP" argument won't be settled until they make it a
rule that the Pitcher's MVP is the CYA.

> > 1988 Kirk Gibson ("Veteran Influence" leading Dodgers)
>
> Although it didn't count in the MVP voting, Gibson showed his worth
> in the first game of the WS against Eckersley and his team went on
> to win the WS. Of course his leadership or "veteran influence" was
> instrumental. Who remembers the shaving cream incident in the
> Dodger pre-season? Stats don't tell the whole story.

I don't really know who would have been a better choice. Gibson did a
lot of things to help the team but he didn't have a _spectacular_
year.

> > 1996 Juan Gonzalez over A-Rod (A-Rod 1st SS to win BA title in 5
> > decades; Seattle writers ignored him)
>
> 47 home runs and 144 rbi in only 134 games. Amazing. Gonzalez
> looked like the best hitter in the game in 1996. But ARod was
> amazing. Part of the reason he didn't win is that Seattle finished
> 2nd to Texas that year. And also, ARod was only 20 years old.
> There would be more chances for him in the years ahead unless he was
> just a flash in the pan. Perhaps ARod might have been a better
> pick. But Juan Gonzalez most certainly was not a bad pick that
> year.

I find it odd also that "there might have been a better pick" should
make this a bad pick. I watched them play, would have voted for A-Rod
but that doesn't make Gonzalez a bad pick.

> > 1998 Juan Gonzalez over A-Rod again (A-Rod's 40-40 season no MVP)
>
> Texas won their division while Seattle was a distant 3rd with a
> losing record. Gonzalez had monster power numbers. Meanwhile,
> Garciaparra and Jeter finished 2nd and 3rd in the MVP vote while
> ARod finished way back in 9th place.

ARod not winning was not an injustice but he was way better than that
ninth place finish would indicate.

> > 1999 I-Rod over Pedro (Pedro wins Pitcher's Triple Crown but people
> > deliberately keep him off battle since he's a pitcher)
>
> How did IRod do in the CY voting that year?


> > 2001 Ichiro over A-Rod (I'm sorry but I'd take A-Rod's season)
>
> Suzuki led the league in hits (242!), BA, and stolen bases and he
> was the best defensive RF in the game, all in his rookie season.
> But more importantly, his team won 116 games while Texas finished in
> last place. ARod finished 6th in MVP voting.
>
> You are dead wrong on eight out of nine. You may have a case in
> 1996 only, but the first place finish of Texas that year put the
> MVP out of reach for a Seattle Mariner.

As long as the award is Most Valuable Player and not Best Player this
reasoning will prevail.

Will in New Haven

--


> cordially, as always,
>
> rm




25 May 2007 21:51:30
Steve Cutchen
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

In article <1180137780.356499.10450@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >,
<shabeki@gmail.com > wrote:

> I always thought that Zoilo Versalles winning it over Tony Oliva in
> 1965 was a horrible move by the writers. What do you think?
>
> I'd add Cal Ripken Jr. in '91 and A-Rod in '03, but obviously, that's
> because I define the MVP by who makes his team better.


Chros Truby.

But who wan't gonna vote for him?


26 May 2007 16:45:54
TimV
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?


<rm@biteme.org > wrote in message
news:LuM5i.576261$c62.369708@fe07.news.easynews.com...
> Thomas R. Kettler <tkettler@blownfuse.net> wrote:
Joe DiMaggio
> attracted far more people to the ballpark than Ted Williams. In
> fact, DiMaggio attracted as many fans to the park as any player in
> the history of the game.
>

Exactly, which is why they call Yankee stadium "The house that Joe DiMaggio
built"

T




26 May 2007 12:47:09
Lance Freezeland
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

On 25 May 2007 17:03:00 -0700, shabeki@gmail.com gave us:

>I always thought that Zoilo Versalles winning it over Tony Oliva in
>1965 was a horrible move by the writers. What do you think?

>I'd add Cal Ripken Jr. in '91 and A-Rod in '03, but obviously, that's
>because I define the MVP by who makes his team better.

How did Arod not make his team better in 2003?

--
Lance

"I believe in the Church of Baseball" Annie Savoy

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


26 May 2007 18:58:21
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

TimV <tvanwagoner_yourknickers_@ou.edu > wrote:
> <rm@biteme.org> wrote in message
>> Thomas R. Kettler <tkettler@blownfuse.net> wrote:

>> Joe DiMaggio attracted far more people to the ballpark than Ted
>> Williams. In fact, DiMaggio attracted as many fans to the park
>> as any player in the history of the game.

> Exactly, which is why they call Yankee stadium "The house that Joe
> DiMaggio built"

If they had built the stadium while DiMaggio played, that is exactly
what they would have called it.

Duh.

cordially, as always,

rm


26 May 2007 15:11:52
David M. Nieporent
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

In article <1180137780.356499.10450@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >,
shabeki@gmail.com wrote:

>I always thought that Zoilo Versalles winning it over Tony Oliva in
>1965 was a horrible move by the writers. What do you think?
>
>I'd add Cal Ripken Jr. in '91 and A-Rod in '03, but obviously, that's
>because I define the MVP by who makes his team better.

Uh, they did make their teams better. A lot better. How can you not make
your team better when you play so well?


26 May 2007 19:29:00
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu > wrote:
> shabeki@gmail.com wrote:

>>I always thought that Zoilo Versalles winning it over Tony Oliva in
>>1965 was a horrible move by the writers. What do you think?

>>I'd add Cal Ripken Jr. in '91 and A-Rod in '03, but obviously, that's
>>because I define the MVP by who makes his team better.

> Uh, they did make their teams better. A lot better. How can you
> not make your team better when you play so well?

In 1991 Baltimore finished with the second worst record in the AL.
And you know that. If Ripken actually did make the team better, it
certainly was not apparent. And wasn't it in 1991 that you were
spotted running through the crowd shouting, "The streak hurt the
team! The streak hurt the team!" Oh, no, that was during the 22
minutes standing ovation. How could we forget that?

cordially, as always,

rm
--
A statfan, who refused to fly after reading of the alarmingly
high probability that there will be a bomb on any given plane,
realized that the probability of there being two bombs on any given
flight is very low. Now, whenever he flies, he carries a bomb with
him.


26 May 2007 15:55:57
sfb
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

Made their teams better?? Bleep, double bleep,and triple bleep.

The 1991 Orioles were 67-95, 5th in Al East, 24 games out of first. The 2003
Rangers were 71-91, 4th in AL West, 25 games out of first place.

The teams couldn't have finished any worse with Grandma Moses playing short
in her rocking chair.

"David M. Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu > wrote in message
news:nieporen-F2A8DF.15115226052007@yellow.octanews.net...
> In article <1180137780.356499.10450@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> shabeki@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>I always thought that Zoilo Versalles winning it over Tony Oliva in
>>1965 was a horrible move by the writers. What do you think?
>>
>>I'd add Cal Ripken Jr. in '91 and A-Rod in '03, but obviously, that's
>>because I define the MVP by who makes his team better.
>
> Uh, they did make their teams better. A lot better. How can you not make
> your team better when you play so well?




26 May 2007 22:18:42
David M. Nieporent
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

In article <j6idnSyZoYFRDcXbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>"David M. Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>> shabeki@gmail.com wrote:

>>>I always thought that Zoilo Versalles winning it over Tony Oliva in
>>>1965 was a horrible move by the writers. What do you think?
>>>I'd add Cal Ripken Jr. in '91 and A-Rod in '03, but obviously, that's
>>>because I define the MVP by who makes his team better.

>> Uh, they did make their teams better. A lot better. How can you not make
>> your team better when you play so well?

>Made their teams better?? Bleep, double bleep,and triple bleep.
>The 1991 Orioles were 67-95, 5th in Al East, 24 games out of first. The 2003
>Rangers were 71-91, 4th in AL West, 25 games out of first place.
>The teams couldn't have finished any worse with Grandma Moses playing short
>in her rocking chair.

Uh, yes, they could have.


27 May 2007 02:27:34
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu > wrote:
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:

Getting desperate for someone to play with?

cordially, as always,

rm


27 May 2007 05:35:27
rec.sport.baseball@deez.nutz
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

Ha! Ha! You lose at the Internets (again)!!!

rm@biteme.org wrote:

>David M. Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
>Getting desperate for someone to play with?
>
>cordially, as always,
>
>rm



26 May 2007 23:33:06
copeab@yahoo.com
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

On May 26, 2:55 pm, "sfb" <s...@spam.net > wrote:
> Made their teams better?? Bleep, double bleep,and triple bleep.
>
> The 1991 Orioles were 67-95, 5th in Al East, 24 games out of first. The 2003
> Rangers were 71-91, 4th in AL West, 25 games out of first place.
>
> The teams couldn't have finished any worse with Grandma Moses playing short
> in her rocking chair.

Both were far better than the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, so they indeed
could have finished worse.

Brandon



27 May 2007 07:56:50
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

copeab@yahoo.com <copeab@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On May 26, 2:55 pm, "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:

Repeat after us. We do not respond to top-posters because
top-posters are ruining usenet.

cordially, as always,

rm


28 May 2007 23:20:26
The Enigmatic One
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

In article <LuM5i.576261$c62.369708@fe07.news.easynews.com >, rm@biteme.org
says...

>You are dead wrong on eight out of nine. You may have a case in
>1996 only, but the first place finish of Texas that year put the
>MVP out of reach for a Seattle Mariner.

Wow.

You're amazingly stupid!


-Tim



29 May 2007 13:30:11
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

The Enigmatic One <try@again.spammers > wrote:
> In article <LuM5i.576261$c62.369708@fe07.news.easynews.com>, rm@biteme.org
> says...
>
>>You are dead wrong on eight out of nine. You may have a case in
>>1996 only, but the first place finish of Texas that year put the
>>MVP out of reach for a Seattle Mariner.
>
> Wow.
>
> You're amazingly stupid!

Your logic is flawless. We stand corrected.

cordially, as always,

rm


06 Jun 2007 05:12:09
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

On May 25, 9:58 pm, r...@biteme.org wrote:
> Thomas R. Kettler <tkett...@blownfuse.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry but those don't come close to the worst. Offhand, here are
> > worse ones:
>
> > 1942 Joe Gordon over Ted Williams (Boston sportswriter refused to put
> > Williams on his ballot despite Triple Crown)
>
> Stat fans focus on offense because defense doesn't really suit the
> spreadsheet nearly as well. But Joe Gordon was an outstanding 2b.
> He was a perennial all star and he made a first class contribution
> both at the plate and on the field.

Okay; I know I'm replying to this well past expected, but are you
serious? Ted Williams committed a mere 4 errors playing CF while
Gordon committed 28 playing 2B. Gordon's fielding percentage of .966
was the second-worst of his career. Williams had more hits in fewer
at-bats and a significantly higher OPS. Despite being their clean-up
hitter, Williams had 145 walks to go with 51 strikeouts. Compare that
with Gordon's 79 BB's/95 K's. And since you mentioned elsewhere that
Rizzuto's winning the Major League Player Of the Year justified his
winning the MVP, I should point out that Ted Williams also won the ML
POY award in 1942.

> > 1947 Joe DiMaggio over Ted Williams (Again, Ted no MVP despite Triple
> > Crown)
>
> Same story. Even Williams admitted that DiMaggio was the better
> player. There is much, much, more to baseball than hitting.
> Clearly Williams was the better hitter but real sport fans then and
> now know that hitting is only half the game. Not only was DiMaggio
> much better defensively, but he was a joy to watch. Joe DiMaggio
> attracted far more people to the ballpark than Ted Williams. In
> fact, DiMaggio attracted as many fans to the park as any player in
> the history of the game.

So now MVP's are awarded on the basis of which star player attracts
more fans to the ballpark? Williams had a significantly higher OPS,
hit more HR's, had a higher batting avg and more hits in fewer at-
bats; in addition to playing a tougher OF position. And again,
Williams won the ML POY award in 1947 too. And Williams lost by point
in the tallying despite getting fewer first place votes than Joe D and
pticher Joe Page of all people.

> > 1950 Phil Rizzuto (Many more deserving candidates than "The Scooter")
>
> Rizzuto batted .324 with 200 hits and he scored 125 runs. And this
> was in the day before ss were supposed to be able to hit. Not only
> was Rizzuto MVP in 1950, but he was also the Major League Player of
> the Year, showing that his MVP was no fluke. Naturally the NYY won
> the WS that year and Rizzuto, the consummate team player, led the AL
> in sacrifice hits.

I'm not going to argue here since it was a wide open race, but I
honestly believe that Yogi should have won it that year.

> You seem to have a problem with the New York Yankees. There was a
> reason they won every year. They had the best players.

You seem to have a problem with anyone who doesn't believe in sucking
off the Yanks. Seriously, there were 9 examples listed, and only 3
dealt with the Yankees, and another 2 listed a future Yankee being
wronged.

> > 1973 Pete Rose over Tom Seaver (Tom Terrific had a 2.08 ERA)
>
> Pitchers have their own award. When hitters are allowed to compete
> for the CY, only then should pitchers be allowed to compete for the
> MVP. In any case, a player who plays every day is vastly more
> valuable than a starting pitcher. Pete Rose led the league in hits,
> plate appearances, and batting average. As part of the Big Red
> Machine, Rose led his team to first place in their division and lost
> the playoffs to the Mets in one of the most stunning upsets in
> baseball history.

I never agreed with the "pitchers can't win MVP's" logic because I
heard too much whining from Yankee fans about Ron Guidry not winning
it in 1978. Feel free to counter with the smug "But the Guidry and
the Yankees won the World Series that year" argument, but I don't care
(and I might as well say beforehand that I'm not a Sox fan either).
Since you did see fit to mention the intangibles that a player brings
to the table as an argument for the MVP, we might as well look at
Seaver's. He was the only pitcher in that starting rotation other
than George Stone with a winning record! His contributions to that
team clearly stood head and shoulders above the rest of his
teammates. Compare that to Rose, who didn't even lead the team in OPS
or runs scored and played alongside another strong MVP candidate like
Tony Perez.

> > 1988 Kirk Gibson ("Veteran Influence" leading Dodgers)
>
> Although it didn't count in the MVP voting, Gibson showed his worth
> in the first game of the WS against Eckersley and his team went on
> to win the WS. Of course his leadership or "veteran influence" was
> instrumental. Who remembers the shaving cream incident in the
> Dodger pre-season? Stats don't tell the whole story.

I also remember Tommy Lasorda and Fred Claire insisting that Gibson
was going to be fined for his behavior. His veteran leadership was
big, but I think it was overrated. He wasn't that much older or
possessed that much more experience than his teammates who started.
Although the Dodgers were coming off two straight losing seasons, much
of the core nucleus that had make postseason earlier in the decade
remained.

> > 1996 Juan Gonzalez over A-Rod (A-Rod 1st SS to win BA title in 5
> > decades; Seattle writers ignored him)
>
> 47 home runs and 144 rbi in only 134 games. Amazing. Gonzalez
> looked like the best hitter in the game in 1996. But ARod was
> amazing. Part of the reason he didn't win is that Seattle finished
> 2nd to Texas that year. And also, ARod was only 20 years old.
> There would be more chances for him in the years ahead unless he was
> just a flash in the pan. Perhaps ARod might have been a better
> pick. But Juan Gonzalez most certainly was not a bad pick that
> year.

I'd consider A-Rod's accomplishments in the Kingdome to be more valued
than Juan Gone's in the Bandbox in Arlington.

> > 1999 I-Rod over Pedro (Pedro wins Pitcher's Triple Crown but people
> > deliberately keep him off battle since he's a pitcher)
>
> How did IRod do in the CY voting that year?

It's faulty logic to say that intangibles should taken into account
when deciding the MVP instead of going purely by the numbers; and then
saying later on that the MVP should be decided purely by the position
the player plays.

> You are dead wrong on eight out of nine. You may have a case in
> 1996 only, but the first place finish of Texas that year put the
> MVP out of reach for a Seattle Mariner.

As far as I'm concerned these are pretty good examples, and better
than the ones I came up with.



06 Jun 2007 17:09:54
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

shabeki@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 25, 9:58 pm, r...@biteme.org wrote:
>> Thomas R. Kettler <tkett...@blownfuse.net> wrote:

>> > I'm sorry but those don't come close to the worst. Offhand,
>> > here are worse ones:

>> > 1942 Joe Gordon over Ted Williams (Boston sportswriter refused
>> > to put Williams on his ballot despite Triple Crown)

>> Stat fans focus on offense because defense doesn't really suit the
>> spreadsheet nearly as well. But Joe Gordon was an outstanding 2b.
>> He was a perennial all star and he made a first class contribution
>> both at the plate and on the field.
>
> Okay; I know I'm replying to this well past expected, but are you
> serious? Ted Williams committed a mere 4 errors playing CF while
> Gordon committed 28 playing 2B.

When did Ted Williams ever play CF? He was a LF and he was
acknowledged even by himself, as being a very poor one. In any
case, errors do not measure a fielder's skill in any meaningful way.

> Gordon's fielding percentage of .966 was the second-worst of his
> career. Williams had more hits in fewer at-bats and a
> significantly higher OPS. Despite being their clean-up hitter,
> Williams had 145 walks to go with 51 strikeouts.

Walks from cleanup hitters are not a great thing. And in Williams'
case, many of those walks were IBB and thus, were relatively
harmless to the opposition.

> Compare that with Gordon's 79 BB's/95 K's. And since you
> mentioned elsewhere that Rizzuto's winning the Major League Player
> Of the Year justified his winning the MVP, I should point out that
> Ted Williams also won the ML POY award in 1942.

You are really cherry-picking the stats, aren't you? Does it mean
nothing to you that the MVP voters actually watched these players
perform? We didn't say that winning the MLPY "justified" winning
the MVP. We merely pointed out that winning the MLPY proves that
winning the MVP in the same year was not a fluke.

>> > 1947 Joe DiMaggio over Ted Williams (Again, Ted no MVP despite
>> > Triple Crown)

>> Same story. Even Williams admitted that DiMaggio was the better
>> player. There is much, much, more to baseball than hitting.
>> Clearly Williams was the better hitter but real sport fans then and
>> now know that hitting is only half the game. Not only was DiMaggio
>> much better defensively, but he was a joy to watch. Joe DiMaggio
>> attracted far more people to the ballpark than Ted Williams. In
>> fact, DiMaggio attracted as many fans to the park as any player in
>> the history of the game.

> So now MVP's are awarded on the basis of which star player attracts
> more fans to the ballpark?

MVPs are awarded at the discretion of the voters. Are you arguing
with the voters or are you making the case that Williams was the
more valuable player? Williams was generally regarded as a great
hitter, although not nearly as good a hitter as the stat fans would
have you believe today. But Dimaggio was regarded as a much better
player, even by Williams himself. Stat fans will have you believe
that Williams was a more efficient player, forgetting that the
player's contribution to his team's success is the paramount indicia
of "value." Needless to say, Dimaggio, as the greatest player on
the greatest team, was considered by most, to be the "Best" player
in baseball.

> Williams had a significantly higher OPS,

OPS does not measure a baseball skill and thus, is irrelevant to any
discussion as to a player's performance.

> hit more HR's, had a higher batting avg and more hits in fewer at-
> bats; in addition to playing a tougher OF position. And again,
> Williams won the ML POY award in 1947 too. And Williams lost by
> point in the tallying despite getting fewer first place votes than
> Joe D and pticher Joe Page of all people.

So the voters thought that Dimaggio was the better player. Boston
finished 14 games behind the NYY, who went on to win the WS. This
means that Dimaggio had a much better year than Williams and the
voters recognized this fact with the MVP.

There is nothing wrong with that.

>> > 1950 Phil Rizzuto (Many more deserving candidates than "The Scooter")
>>
>> Rizzuto batted .324 with 200 hits and he scored 125 runs. And this
>> was in the day before ss were supposed to be able to hit. Not only
>> was Rizzuto MVP in 1950, but he was also the Major League Player of
>> the Year, showing that his MVP was no fluke. Naturally the NYY won
>> the WS that year and Rizzuto, the consummate team player, led the AL
>> in sacrifice hits.
>
> I'm not going to argue here since it was a wide open race, but I
> honestly believe that Yogi should have won it that year.

Yogi got his share.

>> You seem to have a problem with the New York Yankees. There was a
>> reason they won every year. They had the best players.
>
> You seem to have a problem with anyone who doesn't believe in sucking
> off the Yanks.

?!? The NYY were unquestionably the most successful team in the
years under discussion. It should be no surprise that their players
would win the lion's share of the awards.

> Seriously, there were 9 examples listed, and only 3 dealt with the
> Yankees, and another 2 listed a future Yankee being wronged.

>> > 1973 Pete Rose over Tom Seaver (Tom Terrific had a 2.08 ERA)

>> Pitchers have their own award. When hitters are allowed to compete
>> for the CY, only then should pitchers be allowed to compete for the
>> MVP. In any case, a player who plays every day is vastly more
>> valuable than a starting pitcher. Pete Rose led the league in hits,
>> plate appearances, and batting average. As part of the Big Red
>> Machine, Rose led his team to first place in their division and lost
>> the playoffs to the Mets in one of the most stunning upsets in
>> baseball history.

> I never agreed with the "pitchers can't win MVP's" logic because I
> heard too much whining from Yankee fans about Ron Guidry not winning
> it in 1978.

And that whining convinced you that pitchers should win the MVP? Is
that what you are saying?

> Feel free to counter with the smug "But the Guidry and the Yankees
> won the World Series that year" argument, but I don't care (and I
> might as well say beforehand that I'm not a Sox fan either).

Toronto beat Guidry that year to end his winning streak. We
remember the game. It was really the first significant game the
Jays won, besides their very first game.

> Since you did see fit to mention the intangibles that a player
> brings to the table as an argument for the MVP, we might as well
> look at Seaver's.

What intangibles are you referring to? We didn't refer to any
intangibles.

> He was the only pitcher in that starting rotation other than
> George Stone with a winning record! His contributions to that
> team clearly stood head and shoulders above the rest of his
> teammates.

Mr. Intangibles on that team was Thurman Munson, in his last
complete season. This was Guidry's only truly great season and he
won the CY for it. He was duly recognized.

> Compare that to Rose, who didn't even lead the team in
> OPS or runs scored and played alongside another strong MVP
> candidate like Tony Perez.

Again, the notion of OPS doesn't describe a baseball skill. It's a
worthless calculation, dreamed up by silly stat fans looking for a
single number to represent multiple and distinct elements of a
player's offensive game. And why do they want that single number?
Because that single number makes it easier to sort players on a
spreadsheet in order to declare who is "best." What is the point of
saying that Rickey Henderson was "better" than Frank Thomas? What's
more the notion didn't even exist in 1973 so why is it being used to
diss Pete Rose's MVP?

>> > 1988 Kirk Gibson ("Veteran Influence" leading Dodgers)
>>
>> Although it didn't count in the MVP voting, Gibson showed his worth
>> in the first game of the WS against Eckersley and his team went on
>> to win the WS. Of course his leadership or "veteran influence" was
>> instrumental. Who remembers the shaving cream incident in the
>> Dodger pre-season? Stats don't tell the whole story.

> I also remember Tommy Lasorda and Fred Claire insisting that Gibson
> was going to be fined for his behavior. His veteran leadership was
> big, but I think it was overrated. He wasn't that much older or
> possessed that much more experience than his teammates who started.
> Although the Dodgers were coming off two straight losing seasons, much
> of the core nucleus that had make postseason earlier in the decade
> remained.

Great. But Gibson's shot off Eckersley was probably the hilight of
the Dodger's history and is recognized as one of MLB's most dramatic
moments. And why? Because it was the Dodger's best against the A's
best and it correctly foretold the eventual WS result.

>> > 1996 Juan Gonzalez over A-Rod (A-Rod 1st SS to win BA title in
>> > 5 decades; Seattle writers ignored him)

>> 47 home runs and 144 rbi in only 134 games. Amazing. Gonzalez
>> looked like the best hitter in the game in 1996. But ARod was
>> amazing. Part of the reason he didn't win is that Seattle finished
>> 2nd to Texas that year. And also, ARod was only 20 years old.
>> There would be more chances for him in the years ahead unless he was
>> just a flash in the pan. Perhaps ARod might have been a better
>> pick. But Juan Gonzalez most certainly was not a bad pick that
>> year.

> I'd consider A-Rod's accomplishments in the Kingdome to be more
> valued than Juan Gone's in the Bandbox in Arlington.

If you look up the park factors, you'll see that Seattle and Texas
were both a flat 100 in hitting in 1996. Not that we pay too much
attention to Park Factors, which we believe are totally worthless.
But since you obviously put store in them, we thought it worthwhile
to bring it to your attention.

>> > 1999 I-Rod over Pedro (Pedro wins Pitcher's Triple Crown but
>> > people deliberately keep him off battle since he's a pitcher)

>> How did IRod do in the CY voting that year?

> It's faulty logic to say that intangibles should taken into
> account when deciding the MVP instead of going purely by the
> numbers; and then saying later on that the MVP should be decided
> purely by the position the player plays.

How is that? Where did we say "that the MVP should be decided
purely by the position the player plays?"

>> You are dead wrong on eight out of nine. You may have a case in
>> 1996 only, but the first place finish of Texas that year put the
>> MVP out of reach for a Seattle Mariner.

> As far as I'm concerned these are pretty good examples, and better
> than the ones I came up with.

Great.

cordially, as always,

rm


06 Jun 2007 17:13:04
Re: Who do you think was the least deserving MVP on MLB history?

shabeki@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 25, 9:58 pm, r...@biteme.org wrote:
>> Thomas R. Kettler <tkett...@blownfuse.net> wrote:

Oh, we forgot to add in our followup, since most of us saw few of
these players in the years mentioned, it may be more constructive to
try and figure out why the players who won, won. And it is less
constructive to simply declare those wins as unjust because another
player comes out higher in a spreadsheet sort. There is much, much
more to baseball than stats. If stats told even 51% of the story,
stat fans could fatten up their bank accounts at Vegas. But they
don't. They lose their shirts, every time. And why is that?

cordially, as always,

rm