View Single Post
Old
09-06-2011, 11:53 AM
  #731
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,406
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
So all teams that miss the playoffs are "crappy"?

The Padres team that Peavy won the Cy Young with won 89 friggin games! They were really good. Ryan Howard was playing for a Phils team that was playing meaningful games right down to the end of the season. The Dodgers are 12.5 GB in their own division (which isn't a very good division), and 14 GB for the WC.

I'm not wrong, you just want to present a poorly thought out argument, completely devoid of context. You also are ignoring the post just above where I made note of the fact that if you are on a "crappy" team you better be a "CLEAR" winner, such as Hernandez was with the Mariners. Your examples don't prove that it's easier now to win these awards on **** teams, it proves that when there are clear winners they win... we don't have a clear winner, and voters continue to show reluctance to vote for guys on crappy teams.

MVP award -- in either league -- hasn't gone to a guy on an actually crap team since A-Rod in 2003.

If you go through the Cy Young, it tends to be guys on winning teams... or indisputably superior pitchers. Tough to debate Randy Johnson when he's posting mid 2's ERAs and 330-370 Ks.

The influence of the teams Win Pct hasn't gone anywhere, and you hear/read it whenever the voters talk about who they're going to vote for. Is that fair? No. Is it the reality of it? Yep.
You don't think that these guys that are winning MVP's are doing so because they deserve to do you? Or is it just because the other choices were on "crappy" teams (meaning something other than teams that don't make the playoffs)? My poorly thought out argument is no match for your air-tight argument.

Let's look:

2010 - Joey Votto (only guy that really could come close to him would be Cargo, who is on what I would consider a crappy team, but you would not, so this year doesn't support your argument)
2009 - Pujols (no one was touching him that year)
2008 - Pujols (same thing, no one really comes close)
2007 - Rollins (Holliday probably should have won (was on a good team though), and Fielder finished in third but probably should have been 2nd, not sure how this would help your argument either, especially since Fielder is another guy on a team that you would consider good)
2006 - Howard (non-playoff team. Pujols on playoff team and lost. Not crappy, but still, doesn't really help your argument)
2005 - Pujols (again, pretty clear he was the winner. Derek Lee finished third and was on a terrible team, but he didn't deserve to win)
2001-2004 - Bonds (no one stood a chance)
2000 - Jeff Kent (Guerrero may have suffered from being on the Expos here, but this is ten years ago)

So basically the guys on bad teams don't win because they aren't good enough. Or they do win. That's pretty much how it shakes out.

So your theory of these players who really should have won but were on bad teams seems to not make much sense unless you are saying that if these players played better and were on bad teams they still wouldn't have won, which is far too hypothetical to really get into. But ok. You are right, as usual.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline