Jump to content

MLB Awards watch

NJTank

By NJTank
in Sports In General

Recommended Posts

STL_Ian

STL_Ian

Posted
Posted
I've tended to avoid posting about my teams lately because it's just become not worth it here, but if Albert Pujols does not win the NL MVP, how can that award possibly be considered worthwhile any longer?

Arguably the greatest player of this generation is having arguably the greatest year of his career (look beyond the simple RBI and HR stats).

When Albert Pujols retires as one of the greatest players to ever play this game with but one MVP award on his mantle, will people realize what they just missed?

This is going on in other threads, but it's MOST VALUABLE player, not BEST. The Cardinals could've missed the playoffs without Pujols. They finished in forth place. How valuable could he have possibly been? The Phillies don't sniff the playoffs without Ryan Howard. Therefore, he is MOST VALUABLE to his team in 2008 more than any other National League player.

If there was a Best Player award...sure. Pujols had a monster season. But is he really that valuable to a fourth place team? In other words, couldn't the Cards have finished 4th without him?

Now, you're going to tell me about Howard in 2006 when the Phils came up short, or 1987 when Andre Dawson won it on a last place Cubs team. And that's fine. It's happened. But that doesn't mean it should have...

...or the 3 (three) times it was given to Bonds sans playoff appearances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
STL FANATIC

STL FANATIC

Posted
Posted
Oh, and by the way, since we're so concerned with September.

Howard: .352/.422/.882 with 11 HRs and 32 RBIs

Pujols: .321/.427/.702 with 8 HRs and 27 RBIs

Albert was no September slouch. He was just so good the rest of the year he didn't overshadow his entire season in one month.

This really shouldn't even be a debate.

What were Albert's numbers in September when the Cardinals were still mathematically in playoff contention? I briefly looked at Pujols' stats the other night, and at least 3 of his HR's were on the final weekend of the season.

I started to add things up, but got lazy. But to be honest, I think he hit about .250 (Howard's season average...) with maybe 5 HRs and 15 or so RBI.

Possibly his worst stretch of the season.

And certainly there's a case to be made that that's when I guy ought to step up, and I don't disagree. But there's two points to be made there. You look at just how bad the Cardinals did over that 15ish game stretch and it shows you just how valuable Pujols really is to them. And then the other point is that his full season was just so good, and realistically games in April count every bit as much as the games in September.

Is it really fair to take the award away because of three weeks of baseball when he was far and away the best the rest of year?

jsgd-sig-369x100.png

JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT

Link to comment
Share on other sites
STL_Ian

STL_Ian

Posted
Posted
Oh, and by the way, since we're so concerned with September.

Howard: .352/.422/.882 with 11 HRs and 32 RBIs

Pujols: .321/.427/.702 with 8 HRs and 27 RBIs

Albert was no September slouch. He was just so good the rest of the year he didn't overshadow his entire season in one month.

This really shouldn't even be a debate.

What were Albert's numbers in September when the Cardinals were still mathematically in playoff contention? I briefly looked at Pujols' stats the other night, and at least 3 of his HR's were on the final weekend of the season.

I started to add things up, but got lazy. But to be honest, I think he hit about .250 (Howard's season average...) with maybe 5 HRs and 15 or so RBI.

Possibly his worst stretch of the season.

And certainly there's a case to be made that that's when I guy ought to step up, and I don't disagree. But there's two points to be made there. You look at just how bad the Cardinals did over that 15ish game stretch and it shows you just how valuable Pujols really is to them. And then the other point is that his full season was just so good, and realistically games in April count every bit as much as the games in September.

Is it really fair to take the award away because of three weeks of baseball when he was far and away the best the rest of year?

The Cardinals were mathematically eliminated on Sept. 23, so I used B-R & selected from the 1st-23rd. He had 12R-5HR-19RBI-.264/.372/.928. There were 20 team games in that span, all of which he started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jigga

Jigga

Posted
Posted

I normally can't agree with Justin because rampant homerism destroys validity in my eyes, but Pujols truly should be the MVP. For many of the same reasons, Tim Lincecum should win the NL Cy as well. No one has truly dominated the way either of these guys did this year. Plus, Pujols played the entire season with an elbow that could have blown out any second and has needed surgery for months.

Making the playoffs should be a factor, but never a requirement. Guys having great/historic seasons shouldn't be penalized because their teammates suck.

On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said:

Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
The_Admiral

The_Admiral

Posted
Posted

Edinson Volquez showed up in the voting for NL Rookie of the Year. Edinson Volquez has been in the Major Leagues since 2005. This is the sort of pervasive cluelessness that only finds itself associated with Dusty Baker's teams.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CC97

CC97

Posted
Posted
Edinson Volquez showed up in the voting for NL Rookie of the Year. Edinson Volquez has been in the Major Leagues since 2005. This is the sort of pervasive cluelessness that only finds itself associated with Dusty Baker's teams.

He may have met eligibility for ROTY, he was called up for a month in '05, two months in '06, and a month in '07 and I believe the rule states you must have been on an ML roster for less than one seasons worth in your career prior to the season... Volquez would have been up for 4 total months of 6 month season schedule prior to 2008.

---

Chris Creamer
Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net

 

"The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jigga

Jigga

Posted
Posted

I saw this on the Rotoworld.com forum:

This is what it says at MLB.com.

Determining rookie status:

A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has {a} exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or {b} accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit (excluding time in the military service and time on the disabled list).

On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said:

Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr T

Mr T

Posted
Posted
Volquez was not a rookie, because he had 70 ML innings before the start of the season.

About the AL ROTY, I don't think he deserved to win, but I think Chris Davis deserved to have his name at least in the discussion. How several players that got votes got votes over him I do not understand.

which players in particular did you have a problem with?

Chris Davis only played in 80 games for the Rangers. granted he did play very well, but i'm not sure that production makes him any more worthy of ROTY votes than those who were selected.

fivebaseball3.png

Joe Morgan on 'Moneyball' - "Why would I wanna read a book about a computer, that gives computer numbers?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr T

Mr T

Posted
Posted
Ellsbury, Aviles, Span, and Blackburn.

Ellsbury and Blackburn, despite playing whole seasons, just weren't that good, and Aviles and Span both played between 13-20 games more, but didn't come near the results. Lower OPS+, in addition to the obvious "sexy stat"/production deficiencies.

Aviles; OPS+ 122

Span; OPS+ 125

Davis; OPS+ 129

there's not a huge difference there, and when you consider that OPS+ doesn't account for defence then there's not really an argument to be made. Aviles was one of the top 5 SS's in the AL, Span was great in RF and decent in CF for the Twins, where Davis was horrible at 1B and even worse at 3B. Ellsbury was pretty bad, his OPS+ was in the 80's, but he was a good defender in the outfield and led the AL in steals, and Blackburn was arguably the most consistent starter on a team that was in playoff contention almost all year.

fivebaseball3.png

Joe Morgan on 'Moneyball' - "Why would I wanna read a book about a computer, that gives computer numbers?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jigga

Jigga

Posted
Posted

Wow, I'm suprised they didn't just gush over Brandon Webb's W-L record. Tim Lincecum was a beast this year. Winning 25% of his team's games and losing only 5%, leading the league in strikeouts and ERA. How can he not get the Cy with a year like that?

I think the writers are 3 for 3. They'll screw up somewhere though.

On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said:

Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The_Admiral

The_Admiral

Posted
Posted

Lincecum is objectively the best choice, but darned if I didn't have to overcome a huge Sabathia bias after watching him carry the Brewers to the playoffs on his big hefty back.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept