don.rob11 wrote:

Webstergrovesalum wrote:

Giants & Rangers - who else thinks the Giants will blow out the Rangers?

Not sure they can do it, but I'll pull for an Am. League team for the first time in a good while .

Because????

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Based on your descriptions of your MIL, death was probably the only way to find peace and quiet."


Absolutely. On his death certificate, the cause of death is listed as "Nagged."
We're coming home on the plane this afternoon, and six seconds after the pilot makes the "You are now free to use portable electronic devices" announcement, my wife's cell phone rings. The surprising part was my wife looked at the caller ID before she answered.

I'm just guessing here but I suppose your wife must take after her father?

tkihshbt wrote:

to the lefthanded Greg Maddux.

Tom Glavine?

forsberg_us wrote:

Hey, did you hear they sprayed ginger ale instead of champagne?

That's such an interesting story you'd think the commentators would pick up on it.

"his team didn't make the playoffs and he doesn't deserve it."

I don't think anyone would necessarily argue a team has to make the playoffs for a player to win an award, but pitching in meaningful games helps his cause. Steve Carlton clearly deserved the Cy in 1972 because he won 27 games on a last place team. I don't think you can make the same argument for a guy who wins 13 games.
What I object to is the trend of dismissing wins in favor of personal statistics like ERA and strikeouts (in itself a highly-overrated statistic). Now you've got a new layer of stats like VORP and WAR that may be useful, but I tend to think they're cited by people like Keith Law and Rob Neyer mostly to show how smart they think they are.

Max wrote:

Webstergrovesalum wrote:

I'm just guessing here but I suppose your wife must take after her father?

postman?

Can't rule it out, but I suspect deafness is the primary prerequisite for being attracted to my MIL.

Max wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"his team didn't make the playoffs and he doesn't deserve it."

I don't think anyone would necessarily argue a team has to make the playoffs for a player to win an award, but pitching in meaningful games helps his cause. Steve Carlton clearly deserved the Cy in 1972 because he won 27 games on a last place team. I don't think you can make the same argument for a guy who wins 13 games.
What I object to is the trend of dismissing wins in favor of personal statistics like ERA and strikeouts (in itself a highly-overrated statistic). Now you've got a new layer of stats like VORP and WAR that may be useful, but I tend to think they're cited by people like Keith Law and Rob Neyer mostly to show how smart they think they are.

No need for us to retread long standing debates on wins and K's. 

My point, and one that you might agree with, is just that it is interesting how hypocritical it can seem to wave a hand one direction and say, "Hernandez was clearly the best pitcher in the AL based on such-and-such statistical evidence; he deserves the Cy Young." And then wave a hand the other direction and say, "Pujols (or whomever) did not play on a playoff team, and therefor we will give the MVP to someone who was statistically less worthy, but who played for a winner."  And the sports journalists who do it, do it with such conviction.  When the very first stories on "Hernandez for Cy Young" came out in early September they were like, "of course this guy is the only one to consider for the award."

There have been many debates on the definition of "Most Valuable" in this context.  If you equate "most valuable" to best, then you are correct.  But that's not how a lot of voters interpret the term.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"his team didn't make the playoffs and he doesn't deserve it."

I don't think anyone would necessarily argue a team has to make the playoffs for a player to win an award, but pitching in meaningful games helps his cause. Steve Carlton clearly deserved the Cy in 1972 because he won 27 games on a last place team. I don't think you can make the same argument for a guy who wins 13 games.
What I object to is the trend of dismissing wins in favor of personal statistics like ERA and strikeouts (in itself a highly-overrated statistic). Now you've got a new layer of stats like VORP and WAR that may be useful, but I tend to think they're cited by people like Keith Law and Rob Neyer mostly to show how smart they think they are.

No need for us to retread long standing debates on wins and K's. 

My point, and one that you might agree with, is just that it is interesting how hypocritical it can seem to wave a hand one direction and say, "Hernandez was clearly the best pitcher in the AL based on such-and-such statistical evidence; he deserves the Cy Young." And then wave a hand the other direction and say, "Pujols (or whomever) did not play on a playoff team, and therefor we will give the MVP to someone who was statistically less worthy, but who played for a winner."  And the sports journalists who do it, do it with such conviction.  When the very first stories on "Hernandez for Cy Young" came out in early September they were like, "of course this guy is the only one to consider for the award."

There have been many debates on the definition of "Most Valuable" in this context.  If you equate "most valuable" to best, then you are correct.  But that's not how a lot of voters interpret the term.

That's the old line about the 1987 Cubs being able to finish in last place without Andre Dawson. Again, my problem is with voters who rely on statistical data - and only statistical data - to determine these awards.

forsberg_us wrote:

There have been many debates on the definition of "Most Valuable" in this context.  If you equate "most valuable" to best, then you are correct.  But that's not how a lot of voters interpret the term.

Repeating what I replied to Artie, I am not commenting on the proper definition of MVP, or Cy Young, rather I am questioning if the standards are applied consistently by the same voters.  Let's see what happens.

artie_fufkin wrote:

Oh, I agree with all that. Who was the guy from the New York paper who left Pedro Martinez off his MVP ballot a few years ago because "pitchers have their own award,"  a year after he gave an MVP vote to David Wells?

bingo!

I may be wrong, but I thought that the votes were now rotated so that any individual voter doesn't vote in the same category very often.

For example, I thought a writer might get NL Manager of the Year and AL Cy Young one year, then something like AL Rookie of the Year and NL MVP the next.

artie_fufkin wrote:

That's the old line about the 1987 Cubs being able to finish in last place without Andre Dawson. Again, my problem is with voters who rely on statistical data - and only statistical data - to determine these awards.

There's no way a beat writer of any major sport that awards MVP awards is going to be able to consume every game, much less 20 percent of them. There's no way anyone could do that unless they don't work and are rich enough to have Extra Innings, League Pass, Center Ice, Sunday Ticket, etc.

MVP votes are usually cast based on what is remembered and anyone, not just sports writers, will go with what they consumed the most. It's how Ryan Howard wins an MVP in 2006 while Albert Pujols takes second. He had one amazing month where you couldn't read a baseball article or watch Sports Center without hearing how damned good he was. That's precisely why I'd rather someone vote based on statistics rather than what's consumed through mass media. Math doesn't lie. You can argue the science of advanced metrics, but math is completely, 100 percent objective. Sports journalism is not.

An example: there's a good chance that Jim Edmonds was the NL MVP in 2004. He hit .300 with a .420 on base percentage and slugged .643. Oh yeah, he also played a terrific centerfield. Edmonds was an absolute monster at creating runs and preventing runs. But he was "only" fifth despite having better numbers than Beltre and Rolen and playing at a premium defensive position compared to Pujols.

Add all this up and you start to think "wait...what?" How could he have a season comparable to Mickey Mantle and only be the fifth-most valuable player? Easy: there's only so much time on Sports Center, there's only so much space in print, people only visit web pages for about seven seconds and it's impossible to watch every game. Plus, the bozo who did win the MVP is the most talked about athlete of the decade.

Media coverage (wrongly) dictates who the MVP is and isn't.

Last edited by tkihshbt (10/30/2010 10:39 pm)

Max wrote:

Webstergrovesalum wrote:

I'm just guessing here but I suppose your wife must take after her father?

postman?

I really miss the good old days when we would have said "milkman?"

Today it's got to be either the postman or the pool-cleaner.  When did they stop door to door delivery of milk?