Who are the other MVP canidates in the AL besides Verlander? Could he actually win?
I think Gonzalez, Bautista, Konerko, and Cabrera should be up there. Verlander I don't think should be able to win. Pitchers have the Cy Young. Same reason I don't like goalies winning the Hart.
But it does hold up. I must say, it really is awe inspiring to read the words of someone who has never been and likely will never be wrong. I just listed you a handful of guys who won major awards on teams that didn't make the playoffs, three of them on some of the worst in the league. Somehow, that doesn't matter because those guys CLEARLY should have won so in that case people will vote for them. But they will not vote for guys who don't deserve to win. So people only vote for guys on bad teams when they deserve to win? Great argument. Can't you just this once, admit that you are wrong? As far as the other players being on good teams, I'd beg to differ. You don't make the playoffs, you aren't on a good team.
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.
Good points, and think voters are likely to look at it that way. For me MVP should be more about overall impact than relative team value. For example, halladay has a crazy WAR total this season last I looked
Two ways to look at the thing... what is the value of that player in a team neutral context, and what is the value of that player in a team perspective. If, ultimately, the sport is about wins and losses, I don't think you can ignore the team a player is on... in the sense that the impact that player makes on THAT season in terms of Ws/Ls is directly relative to his team. For example, an otherworldly pitcher that can go and post a good Win Pct for a terrible team is a lot more valuable (in theory) than a guy whose team would win a good amount of the time regardless of who is on the mound... same goes with a hitter in a stacked lineup.
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.
So basically what I am saying is show my why my argument is incorrect. Like show me multiple situations where a guy really should have won but didn't because of his team. Because I can't find any except maybe Guerrero in 2000.
So basically what I am saying is show my why my argument is incorrect. Like show me multiple situations where a guy really should have won but didn't because of his team. Because I can't find any except maybe Guerrero in 2000.
Joey Votto won in a LANDSLIDE over Pujols last year.
Pujols had more runs, hits, HRs, RBIS, BB, and 29 less Ks than Votto. Votto was marginally better in his rate numbers.
31-1 1st place votes... it wasn't even close. Why? Because Votto's team made the playoffs, and Pujols' team didn't. If STL had made the playoffs, then Pujols would have been the MVP and the voting almost surely would have flipped. Was Votto a deserving MVP candidate? Sure. Was he a 31-1 1st place vote candidate over the season Pujols had? Not if you don't factor in wins.
Winning continues to exert huge influence over voting. You see it every year if you look at the tallies.
Winning definitely helped Pedroia.
Check out the AL in 2006 when Morneau won... multiple guys had fantastic seasons on teams that didn't make the playoffs.
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.
So, none of these actually work to support your argument that being on a team completely out of contention since May... is bad for your voting potential? OK.
Joey Votto won in a LANDSLIDE over Pujols last year.
Pujols had more runs, hits, HRs, RBIS, BB, and 29 less Ks than Votto. Votto was marginally better in his rate numbers.
31-1 1st place votes... it wasn't even close. Why? Because Votto's team made the playoffs, and Pujols' team didn't. If STL had made the playoffs, then Pujols would have been the MVP and the voting almost surely would have flipped. Was Votto a deserving MVP candidate? Sure. Was he a 31-1 1st place vote candidate over the season Pujols had? Not if you don't factor in wins.
Lol. So the guys that I pointed out on teams that didn't make the playoffs but still won awards doesn't matter because the teams were still good. But when a guy doesn't win it is because his team isn't good, even though it is good enough for other guys to win?
Quote:
Winning continues to exert huge influence over voting. You see it every year if you look at the tallies.
Winning definitely helped Pedroia.
He looked like the MVP to me. So now the argument is that winning helps but losing doesn't hurt?
Quote:
Check out the AL in 2006 when Morneau won... multiple guys had fantastic seasons on teams that didn't make the playoffs.
Who exactly are you talking about here? Looks to me like that MVP voting shook out pretty fairly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
So, none of these actually work to support your argument that being on a team completely out of contention since May... is bad for your voting potential? OK.
My point in that post is that the guys who won should have won. Sure, maybe a guy who finished 8th should have finished 3rd or something, but that is irrelevant. My point since the beginning is if you are going to win, you are going to win, which I have shown you has happened.
I usually don't agree with Jester that much, but I'm with him on this one. But I think being on a winning team isn't necessarily a requirement for MVP or Cy Young, but being on a winning team increases your chances of winning either award.
I usually don't agree with Jester that much, but I'm with him on this one. But I think being on a winning team isn't necessarily a requirement for MVP or Cy Young, but being on a winning team increases your chances of winning either award.
It's pretty much common knowledge that being on a winning team greatly increases your chances at winning the big awards. Not even sure why this is a debate.
He looked like the MVP to me. So now the argument is that winning helps but losing doesn't hurt?
Mind = Blown.
How, exactly, could you extract that from my argument? Not making the playoffs hurts your chances... because, presumably, your team didn't win as much. Not even being in contention hurts your chances even more, because teams that are out of contention are, presumably, losing even more.
How, exactly, could you extract that from my argument? Not making the playoffs hurts your chances... because, presumably, your team didn't win as much. Not even being in contention hurts your chances even more, because teams that are out of contention are, presumably, losing even more.
I got that because you said winning exerts huge force over voting and Pedroia was helped by winning. Nothing in your argument that I was responding to seemed to say that losing hurts you, except that Pujols missed the playoffs and lost (even though he was on a team that by your standards, was good and therefore would not hinder a guy like Howard from winning the award, but did hinder Pujols from winning that year). It's good that you just ignored the rest of my comments. They were probably not valid anyway because you didn't write them.
I got that because you said winning exerts huge force over voting and Pedroia was helped by winning. Nothing in your argument that I was responding to seemed to say that losing hurts you, except that Pujols missed the playoffs and lost (even though he was on a team that by your standards, was good and therefore would not hinder a guy like Howard from winning the award, but did hinder Pujols from winning that year). It's good that you just ignored the rest of my comments. They were probably not valid anyway because you didn't write them.
Really, DFF? Nothing in my argument suggested that losing hurts you? Isn't the basis of being a "crappy" team the fact that you "lose" a fair amount? The entire argument stemmed from Kershaw, and the fact that he's a on a sub .500 team... meaning they lose more than they win, and the fact that they are not doing well in a crappy division.
Really, DFF? Nothing in my argument suggested that losing hurts you? Isn't the basis of being a "crappy" team the fact that you "lose" a fair amount?
Well maybe I misspoke there. Nothing in the argument I was responding to. Still haven't responded to the other arguments, the most glaring being show me where a guy should have won but lost because he was on a bad team. You showed me Pujols, but he is on a team that you consider good. Now if you don't think this team is good, then Howard winning hurts your argument. So either way you're in trouble there. But you are right anyway.
Well maybe I misspoke there. Nothing in the argument I was responding to. Still haven't responded to the other arguments, the most glaring being show me where a guy should have won but lost because he was on a bad team. You showed me Pujols, but he is on a team that you consider good. Now if you don't think this team is good, then Howard winning hurts your argument. So either way you're in trouble there. But you are right anyway.
The Phils missed the WC by 3 games that year! Phils finished the year 6-4, and the Dodgers and Padres finished 8-2 and 9-1 respectively. In short, the Phils were in it until the last series of the season.
So, no, Howard doesn't really hurt my argument at all. Moreover, Howard led all of baseball in HR, RBI, and a close 3rd in OPS.
The Phils missed the WC by 3 games that year! Phils finished the year 6-4, and the Dodgers and Padres finished 8-2 and 9-1 respectively. In short, the Phils were in it until the last series of the season.
So, no, Howard doesn't really hurt my argument at all. Moreover, Howard led all of baseball in HR, RBI, and a close 3rd in OPS.
So missing the WC by three games means a team is still good enough for a player to win the MVP, but missing the WC by five games was a deciding factor last season in Pujols not winning? Come on man. I'm not even going to bother with this argument any more. You are obviously right.
So missing the WC by three games means a team is still good enough for a player to win the MVP, but missing the WC by five games was a deciding factor last season in Pujols not winning? Come on man. I'm not even going to bother with this argument any more. You are obviously right.
It's easy to say that, but then when I point out that it doesn't (list of guys who have won without being on winning teams vs. the list of guys who have "lost" while being on losing teams). Again, if you could show me examples, that would help, but you haven't done that. You have said winning has helped certain players, but have not shown me where not winning has hurt them. Except in the case of Pujols, which is fine, even though Howard was on a comparable team the year he WON. Not to mention the year Pujols won when he was on a team that didn't make the playoffs. I know I said I was done, but you just don't seem to grasping this too well. As I have said in all of my arguments with you over time, and which you RARELY actually do, show me why I am wrong. Show me instances where guys should have won but didn't. Not where guys should have finished 4th but finished 9th or where guys should really have been 2nd but were 5th. Instances where a guy was clearly the winner but lost, presumably because of the team he was on. Show me that and I'll eat my words. But I can't seem to find it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshimitsu
Yeah, he is. It's hard to believe that anyone would argue that being on a winning team isn't a factor in award voting.
But maybe later you can come back and argue about whether or not water is wet.
Thank you for your insightful input this discussion. All I'm saying, and have been saying, is that if you are the best player or best pitcher, you're going to win. Just look at the guys who have won. Apparently the list of guys I have mentioned that have won on losing teams is irrelevant and that is just an exception. An exception that happens every year for the last five years and probably further back if you look.
It's easy to say that, but then when I point out that it doesn't (list of guys who have won without being on winning teams vs. the list of guys who have "lost" while being on losing teams). Again, if you could show me examples, that would help, but you haven't done that. You have said winning has helped certain players, but have not shown me where not winning has hurt them. Except in the case of Pujols, which is fine, even though Howard was on a comparable team the year he WON. Not to mention the year Pujols won when he was on a team that didn't make the playoffs. I know I said I was done, but you just don't seem to grasping this too well. As I have said in all of my arguments with you over time, and which you RARELY actually do, show me why I am wrong. Show me instances where guys should have won but didn't. Not where guys should have finished 4th but finished 9th or where guys should really have been 2nd but were 5th. Instances where a guy was clearly the winner but lost, presumably because of the team he was on. Show me that and I'll eat my words. But I can't seem to find it.
Hey DFF, why don't you back up and see how I defined the team that Kershaw is on. I used the term "crappy" teams that just miss the playoffs are not crappy.
The Phillies won more games than Pujols' Cards in 2006.
I went down your list of players one-by-one and noted that outside of Webb, NONE OF THEM, were on "crappy" teams... they all played for good teams, that won a lot of baseball games. That, or they were CLEARLY the winner that year.
However, the bold is an example of how *ing dense you are, and how poor your reading comprehension is. I SPECIFICALLY said that if you are clearly the winner, you can overcome the fact that your team isn't good. Other than that, it is extremely hard for you to win. In fact, I said that before you ever started posting about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
And the bad team effect is traditionally the exact opposite. If your team is bad, that really hurts your voting potential unless you're a clear favorite (Felix Hernandez, for example).
So, really, you should eat your words because you seemingly don't bother to read.
Hey DFF, why don't you back up and see how I defined the team that Kershaw is on. I used the term "crappy" teams that just miss the playoffs are not crappy.
The Phillies won more games than Pujols' Cards in 2006.
I went down your list of players one-by-one and noted that outside of Webb, NONE OF THEM, were on "crappy" teams... they all played for good teams, that won a lot of baseball games. That, or they were CLEARLY the winner that year.
However, the bold is an example of how *ing dense you are, and how poor your reading comprehension is. I SPECIFICALLY said that if you are clearly the winner, you can overcome the fact that your team isn't good. Other than that, it is extremely hard for you to win. In fact, I said that before you ever started posting about this.
So, really, you should eat your words because you seemingly don't bother to read.
Then I guess I did read your arguments wrong. But why did you continue to argue with me if we are both saying the same thing?
