I'm 46, and I'm outstanding--just ask my girlfriend.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Oh, you meant at playing baseball. I wasn't good at that before I was 38.
:D
Printable View
I'm 46, and I'm outstanding--just ask my girlfriend.Quote:
Originally Posted by metsguy234
Oh, you meant at playing baseball. I wasn't good at that before I was 38.
:D
ROFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
Anyways, I think the poll I just saw on ESPN for NL MVP would make HoustonGM sick. The options were: Manny Ramirez, C.C. Sabathia, Carlos Delgado, Albert Pujols, and I forget who the last person was. And the results might make him even sicker, because C.C. was "winning" the poll.
Yeah, those polls are pretty stupid. It's a different assortment of 5 players each day. You can't accurately access the MVP field by presenting a limited amount of choices. I've voted each day, and some of the days, the guy I think should be the MVP isn't even an option to vote for, so I have to settle for the best guy of the 5, who I don't think is actually the MVP of the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
I heard the BT people talking about Manny for MVP last night. I was half asleep, but I remember the conclusion being something like "He *certainly* should be considered."
Even if you throw in Manny's AL stats and include all that, Pujols is better.
It makes no sense.
I think what's happening with Pujols is similar to what Bill James said used to happen to Stan Musial. Paraphrasing, James said that the voters, not necessarily collectively, asked themselves, "How do we screw Stan Musial out of the MVP this time? Who can we give the award to besides Musial?"
This isn't too say that the voters have it out for Pujols, necessarily. It's more like...Pujols is so great that it's expected, so he's never given the consideration he deserves, even though there's always a viable argument that he's the MVP.
Pujols had the misfortune of entering the league at the same time that Barry Bonds went on a ridiculous run. Even considering that, Pujols really should have 3 MVP awards at this point (including this year) - 2005, 2006, 2008. He also has a strong argument in 2007. One day, we'll look back on Pujols like we do Ted Williams - as one of the greatest players ever. And just like Ted Williams, Pujols will have a lot less hardware than he deserves.
Yeah... you know, he will go down as the best hitter of this decade (could become the best hitter since Ruth, if he stays healthy), but he may only have 1 MVP in the decade to show for it. He's always coming in behind some freak season (Adrian Beltre, Ryan Howard) or a freak player (Bonds). This year they're pretty much just ignoring him.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's interesting how Bonds won the award so easily, even though there was a rift between him and the media, yet Pujols (a friendly, easy-going character) is having a tough time getting consideration.
If he's not the frontrunner with the writers (I suspect he actually is), then I hope he wins on account of the media being unable to collectively decide on some dark horse candidate.
Well, it comes down to the fact that no matter how much the voters hated Bonds, you just CAN'T ignore the seasons he was having. There's absolutely no possible way to slice it that he wasn't the MVP in each of those seasons. When a player posts an OBP over .500 or .600 and a slugging over .750, along with shiny batting averages, there's NO ignoring that. Pujols is having a phenomenal season this year, the best of his career, but it's easier to ignore more "mundane" superstar numbers than it is to ignore out-of-this-world best-ever numbers. Bonds's numbers were so out of line with anything anybody including himself had ever done. Pujols's numbers aren't too much different from what he does year and year out, so there's no great story, and because the award is voted on by reporters, it's as much about the narrative, if not more so, as it is about the production.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
By the way, I like this response from Keith Law's chat today on ESPN:
Steve (Boston): Could you bullet point the most crucial factors you consider when giving your MVP opinion? Thanks.
Keith Law: * Value.
He is NOT that nice a guy tho. I have read, I have NO idea where now, that he routinely blows off the media and is NOT the prototypicle "nice guy"Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Blowing off the media does not mean you're not a nice guy. It means that you don't want to deal with the nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Everything I've read about Pujols indicates that he's one of the most upstanding citizens and nicest guys in the game. He adopted his wife's child with down syndrome, and launched the Pujols Family Foundation that helps people and familys affected by down syndrome. With the help of the foundation, he's taken supplies and even teams of doctors to help the poor in the Dominican Republic. They hold an annual golf event to raise money to send dentists to the Dominican Republic. etc. etc. etc.
Only a nice guy would put so much effort into charity in the way that Pujols does.
I think that it's obvious how the two situations aren't comparable.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
I happen to think that he probably is a decent guy. Maybe he has an inflated ego, and is a jerk to the media, but again, all we know about players, unless we personally know them, is what the media tells us, and what the media tells us is greatly influenced by the relationship the media has with the player, and just because a player has a bad relationship with the media doesn't mean that the player is a bad guy.Quote:
then how is Bonds a bad guy?
I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
oops :p I was thinking you ment Pujols is probably a decent guyQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Your confusing a "nice guy" with a "media friendly guy", Pujols isn't overly friendly to the media, he's a quiet, private guy, who doesn't have promoting himself via the media as a priority,Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Also Pujols 2nd place MVPs were more a factor of bad luck being behind Bonds and at least 2005 Howard posted very similar stats, Williams was clearly the best player in the league and lost the MVP 3 or 4 times.