word up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Printable View
word up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
i'll say this much, many fans, writers, and voters argue the meaning of value. In the case of the award, the rules cleary state the winner doesn't have to be from a playoff team. It is looking for the best overall valuable player in the league that year. In this case, that is Mauer. The most valuable player on the team that won the most games would be Tex, or possibly even Jeter. Jeter technically had a better year in terms of overall contributions, Tex had the better year at the plate.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
but you have to remember. When the votes were casted, the Twins and Yankees were just as far along as each other in the playoffs.
And again, it clearly states, player does not have to come from a playoff team. Simply the most valuable, this year, it's Mauer.
And Mauer does, in fact, come from a playoff team anyway. When the Twins won the playoff game for the division, that shut up the one argument that had been repeatedly parroted throughout September against Mauer as MVP. There's really no legitimate argument at this point, unless you want to completely mangle the definition of "value" beyond all recognition.
Furthering the point: (From 1901-2009) Jeter's 2009 season ranks 129th all-time amongst his fellow SS in OPS+, while Teixeira's 2009 season ranks 299th all-time amongst his fellow 1B. Mauer's is #2 all-time amongst his fellow users of the tools of ignorance. It deserves to be celebrated. It deserves to be recognized. Period.
Just about all the arguements that you have applied to Jeter would apply to Joe Morgan.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Joe was surrounded by HOF caliber players: Johnny Bench, Pete Rose, Tony Perez plus Ken Griffey Sr., George Foster, Dave Concepcion and Cesar Geronimo. Joe played 2nd base not quite as demanding a position as Jeter's SS. Joe was a table setter, a run scorer, like Jeter. He was a better base stealer, less power. The one real stand out Stat of Morgan in 1975 was 132 walks. He had 30 more walks than Mike Schmidt. The Base on Balls pushed up Morgans OBP and OPS.
As for Lynn, You can make a very stong case for Reggie Jackson, George Scott, John Mayberry, Rod Carew, Rollie Fingers, Jim Plamer or Thurman Munson in 1975. It was the Red Sox winning that put Lynn in the forefront with 97% of the first place votes. (Fingers from the other division champ got the rest of the 1st place vote - in 1975 no writers voted for any player #1 in the MVP vote, in either league, that did not win a division)
Let me make this very clear. Joe Mauer is deserving of the MVP award. Period.
My point has always been, that in the past, the best player from the best team would get the award. The Yankees had the best team (based on regular season record), so in the past Jeter or Tex or ever Mariano Rivera would split the vote. A look at the 1975 National MVP vote where only Joe Morgan and Pete Rose got any 1st place votes is a fine example of how MVP voters use to think.
Except for the issue of Joe Morgan actually being the most valuable player in the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
Okay. My pick for MVP that year would be Rod Carew. Fred Lynn won as a very deserving candidate, though. And, remember, again, I never claimed that quality of a player's team wasn't an influence.Quote:
As for Lynn, You can make a very stong case for Reggie Jackson, George Scott, John Mayberry, Rod Carew, Rollie Fingers, Jim Plamer or Thurman Munson in 1975. It was the Red Sox winning that put Lynn in the forefront with 97% of the first place votes. (Fingers from the other division champ got the rest of the 1st place vote - in 1975 no writers voted for any player #1 in the MVP vote, in either league, that did not win a division)
Except when he didn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYanksFan
Sometimes, the best player on the best team IS the most valuable player. Sometimes, yes, being on the best team boosts a player and he wins over a more deserving player. Sometimes, the best player on the best team doesn't get the award.
You keep pointing to examples when the best player on the best team won the award as evidence that this was somehow the case every single time. But, again, sometimes that player WAS the most deserving player, AND there are tons of examples of times when it DIDN'T happen, so I don't know what the point is of continually repeating certain examples that support your "position" while continually ignoring the examples that don't.
We know this how? Seems like wild speculation. Again, in the past, the best player on the best team sometimes doesn't get the award.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYanksFan
Joe Morgan was absolutely the Most Valuable Player in the National League that year. That is not a case of them using team record to justify giving it to the best player on the best team. Joe Morgan happened to be the best player on the best team while also being the best player in the league. When you lead the league in OPS+ by a large margin, while playing excellent defense at second base, and providing excellent value on the basepaths, chances are, you're the most valuable player in the league. His .466 on-base percentage that year was 60 points higher than anybody else. And Morgan was even BETTER the following year in 1976 where he ALSO took home the MVP award - not because of his team, but because he was the best player in the league.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYanksFan
Joe Morgan of 1975/1976 has more in common with 2009 Joe Mauer than 2009 Derek Jeter. Morgan, like Mauer, was the best offensive player in the league while playing an up the middle position excellently.
what would you argue should be the closest race of mvp picks ever? like a year where both players were neck and neck arguable
Um, No.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
Yes, "Little" Joe was surrounded by HOF caliber talent, but he made them look like chopped liver in those two seasons. Derek Jeter, while a very good player, has never done this. Jeter had a case for the MVP in 1999, but it was very close between him and Nomar Garciaparra, Roberto Alomar, Manny Ramirez and Jeter's teammate Bernie Williams. How Ivan Rodriguez won the award is a mystery to me, but whatever. The point is that Jeter, while a very good player, has never been the dominant player that Morgan was in the '75 and '76 seasons if one compares him against both his teammates and the AL. In 1975 Joe was head and shoulders above the rest of the NL. In 1976? Remember the first Gulf War in 1991? In 1976, Joe was the U.S. and the rest of MLB was Iraq. That's how great the disparity was. Want more sport-centric examples? OK, how about Wayne Gretzky in the early 1980's, Tiger Woods, and Roger Federer before Rafael Nadal came along. Morgan utterly dominated his sport in those two seasons. Nobody came close to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
Can we at least agree on the fact that in order to deserve the MVP, a player must be the best player in the league at his position? If so, we can say adios to Mr. October as he is at least behind current Yankee broadcaster: Ken Singleton and the father of everyone's favourite Satan/scapegoat of the steroid era: Bobby Bonds. George Scott is at least behind John Mayberry and perhaps Boog Powell. There is some question as to whether Rollie Fingers was the best reliever on his own team, due to Jim Todd's strong season. I like strikeouts from a reliever though, so I'll take the handle-bar mustachioed one. But, Goose Gossage squishes both of them like bugs, so Fingers is out. I hate to do this because he is your favourite player, but Fiore Gino Tennaci (otherwise known as Gene Tenace) had a better year than Thurman Munson in 1975, so Munson's out.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
That leaves us with Mayberry, Carew, Palmer and the guy you forgot about: Toby Harrah (provided of course that we can help wean you off your habit of worshipping the holy trinity of AVG, HR, and RBI, which are nice, but can cause some players to be overrated and some to be underrated unnecessarily) as well as the guy who won: Fred Lynn.
Jim Palmer was far and away the best pitcher in the majors that year, but I have a huge distaste for pitchers winning the MVP. In my view the MVP is for the hitters. I mean would you give the Cy Young to a hitter...um, nope. So, why do pitchers get considered for this award? In my book, unless a pitcher blows the field of hitters away during a season, he should not get the award, and relief pitchers should never, ever, ever get it because I don't care how well they pitch, they can't possibly have more value than the best starters in the league. Palmer did not really blow any of Carew, Harrah, Lynn, or Mayberry out of the water. So scratch him off.
Ultimately I think the one who got jobbed in all this was Rodney Cline Carew. I think you can make the case, once you factor in everything including what defensive positions these guys played, and the fact that he swiped 35 bags and was caught just nine times, that he deserved it. But he played on the team with the worst record of these 4 and that unfortunately does hold sway with the voters. The player that stood head and shoulders above his teammates offensively was John Mayberry. His team went 91-71, so why not? Well, the Oakland Athletics were in the last of their 5 straight division title seasons and not making the playoffs as you've pointed out does sway the voters. Harrah's the 4th best and on a losing team as well, so it wasn't going to be him. Fred Lynn was the only player in these four whose team went to the playoffs. While I consider that argument to be a crock of s**t, I can see how it might sway the voters. My vote would've gone to 1) Carew, 2) Lynn, and 3) Mayberry in 1975. Fred Lynn was not as bad a choice as you're making it out to be though. Certainly the BBWAA has s**t the bed far worse than that: see 1987: Bell, George (and I'm a lifelong Jays fan) and Dawson, Andre (loved him with the Expos, but c'mon). Never have I seen the writers so completely lose their s**t over HR and RBI.
Alan Trammell, Wade Boggs, and Paul Molitor all easily outclassed Bell and Dwight Evans and ROY Mark McGwire were no slouches either. You could make a case that every team in the NL, including the Cubs, had a player that was more valuable to their team than Dawson was to the Cubs. Rick Sutcliffe was the Cubs MVP that year, on a staff that was otherwise either injured or inexperienced or just plain bad.
There is no greater example of the need to look past HR, and RBI than Andre Dawson's 1987 "MVP" season and the fact that he was on a last place team makes his selection abominable. Yes he was first in TB, HR, and RBI *yawn*. His other appearances on the leaderboard? 6th in SLG, 10th in OPS, tied for 5th in Hits, not in the top 10 in OPS+, and various other finishes, none of which were too spectacular or awe inspiring. The most damning stat that he had that year was that he tied for 6th in Outs Made, which is not a stat you want an MVP to be close to the lead in and he had an abysmal .328 OBP. Tony Gwynn, Eric Davis, Dale Murphy, Ozzie Smith, Tim Raines, Darryl Strawberry, Jack Clark and Mike Schmidt would all have been much better choices than Dawson, but the writers couldn't stop drooling over the HR and RBI totals. Ugh.
More deserving than Tex or Jeter? Because that's what started this whole debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
Joe Mauer's team made the playoffs, which is all that should really count if we're using the whole "Yeah, but how did his team do?" argument. The playoffs are a complete crapshoot where the best team doesn't always win. This year the best team did win, but a look back through all of baseball history tells us that this most definitely does not always happen and given that 8 teams are now involved in the playoffs, the chances of this happening are far less than they were in the good ole days before divisional play. To put it another way, to pre-suppose that the team with the best record the day after the end of the regular season will be hoisting the trophy when all is said and done is foolhardy and therefore it makes more sense to take all the teams that make the playoffs as equals, if making the playoffs should even be one of the criteria. The 1975 vote should have been unanimous for Joe Morgan. It just was not close.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
On a side note, congratulations to the writers for getting the AL Cy Young award right. They managed to overlook the fact that Zack Greinke's team finished last in the division, and he finished tied for 7th in wins. Probably has more to do with the fact that nobody won 20 in the the majors, but what an absolutely dominant season. Whoa! Just three years ago, it looked like he was going to flame out and he had completely lost interest due in part to an anxiety disorder. Now look at him. Fabulous. One down, three to go BBWAA: Lincecum, Mauer and Pujols. Baby steps guys (and girls). You can do it. ;)
There's a bunch. I wouldn't know where to begin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Because the award is for player, not just hitter, and because the rules specifically say that pitchers are eligible. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
I think the MVP should be for hitters only, but until (yeah, right :p) the rules change I'll still vote for pitchers with my imaginary votes :(
I love imaginary votes. Casey Mcgee won my imaginary ROY award.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
The closet race, vote wise, was 1979 in the National League, a dead tie between Keith Hernadez and Willie Stargell. They were name Co-MVPs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Here are the MVP candidates from 1975 and their stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
http://www.baseball-reference.com/aw...#AL_MVP_voting
The one thing that dear old Mr. Tenace did more than Mr Munson was walk. I know the old saying is a walk is as good as a hit but, come on. Munson hit .318 with 102 RBI, Geno hit .255 with 87 RBI. Munson got 21% of the MVP vote,(on a 4th place team) Tenace 2% (on a first place team) . I have no idea how old you are, but no one but the most partisan A's fan, watching baseball in 1975 would have put Tennace in Munson's class. Munson, Bench and Fisk were the dominate catchers of that era. Saying Gene Tenace had a better year than Munson because he batted eighth and got walked a lot stretches the bounds of reason.
A 30 point edge in OBP is significant. His walks weren't because he batted 8th. His walks were because he took a lot of pitches and had a good eye. He batted 6th more than anywhere else, and 7th the second most. Their value in 1975 was a lot closer than you think. Tenace was undeniably the better hitter that year. The argument Munson has is that he was a better defensive catcher and Tenace spent a lot of time at first base.
But a 60 point difference in batting average is not significant? I guess I'm too old. I actually think getting hits in baseball is important, and heaven forbid, driving in runs counts for something too. I think the way the sports writers in 1975 did.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
As a side note, to see how team placement affected voting in the past check out American League 1959. When the White Sox won the pennant.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/aw...#AL_MVP_voting
On-base percentage is more important than batting average. Not making outs is more important than getting hits. RBI are heavily influenced by the players that bat in front of you and thus are not useful in determining a player's individual value.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
I agree that Munson was more valuable than Tenace that year. I think Tenace is a lot closer to Munson than you think. The reason Munson was more valuable was because he was better defensively and Tenace spent a good deal of time at first base. It's not because Munson had a better batting average and more RBI.
Again, what's your point? Yes, there are times where it had an effect. Nobody has denied that. In fact, I've repeatedly said as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYanksFan
Here again is your quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Look at 1959, Best Player on Best Team, Only players on the Whitesox were considered. So "always has been, even the old school" is false.
Thats the point.
What? Once again, I never denied that it never had an influence.
well i wasn't referring to vote wise, just stat wiseQuote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
Probably too many to count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
I know, i was just looking for a good example to play with :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Jeter is HOF. His defense is average, but his offense is off the charts. I will give an error here and there vs. his run production anytime. Offensively, he may be the best SS ever. The other would have been A-Rod, but...
As for Munson, contracts have stipulated that they cannot fly their own planes since him.
I will agree that Jeter is HOF, but his defense over the course of his career has not been average. This year somehow at the age of 35, he became an above average defensive shortstop. From 2005-2007, he was the worst defensive full-time shortstop in the major leagues bar none. Credit goes to him for busting his ass to get better, but he's no average defensive shortstop in the overall for his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by grasshopper
As for the comment that he may be the best offensive shortstop ever, puh-leaze. Give your head a shake. If we can agree on using OPS+ 1) Because it's quick and 2) Because it allows us to compare across eras, factoring for era and home ballpark, Honus Wagner and Arky Vaughan emerge as better than Jeter. Alex Rodriguez, if his career were to end today, would still be considered a SS because he's still played about 60% of his games there, and so would Nomar Garciaparra, but injuries have really derailed him. Also, we'll have to keep an eye on Hanley Ramirez, who when it's all said and done could very well overtake all of them, except probably Wagner. Of course the Yankees could trade for Ramirez/buy him and stick him in the OF so he won't qualify as a SS at the end of his career (It's not like they haven't done that before ;) ). Jeter's a very good hitter, but he's not the best hitting shortstop ever.
OBP:Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
Munson .366
Tenace .395
SLG:
Munson .429
Tenace .464
OPS:
Munson .795
Tenace .859
OPS+:
Munson 126
Tenace 145
In every way, shape, and form Tenace was the better hitter in 1975, despite the 63 point difference in batting average and Munson's 15 RBI advantage. As HGM pointed out above, Munson was the slightly more valuable player (6.1 WAR to 5.5 WAR, where WAR equals Wins Above Replacement, a stat that attempts to combine offense and defense in one nice tidy little number) once defense is factored in, but Tenace was easily the more valuable hitter and since all your arguments were offense-based that's what I chose to argue. If that's disingenuous my apologies, but you didn't bring up The Yankee Captain's defensive abilities once in your argument, so I wasn't gonna bring it up in mine.
Besides, has anyone ever selected an MVP on the basis of offense + defense? Nope. AVG, HR, RBI and defensive reputation (which is far different from defensive ability: see Jeter, Derek pre-2009, Palmeiro, Rafael 1999 etc.) only if necessary to justify the decision. These days, with all the wonderful stats available on the interwebs we can do better than that. There's no excuses for getting these awards wrong anymore, but it'll continue to happen. :(
I'll have a look when I get a chance Jeffy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Jeter as the best offensive shortstop ever shows either complete homerism or ignorance of history. The best offensive shortstop ever...hell, best shortstop ever...is Honus Wagner and there's no competition.
Arky Vaughan, as actionjackson mentioned, was a better hitter on a rate basis than Jeter, but Jeter has an edge in playing time that's only going to continue to grow, so when all is said and done, I'd probably rank Jeter above Vaughan, both offensively and overall. Jeter is a top 5 offensive shortstop at this point, and by the end of his career, will likely have a very strong argument for #2 overall behind Wagner.
I could not have said it better myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
First thing i thought was of players like Honus, Nomar, Ernie Banks, Hanley already etc that are all better offensive shortstops. And his defense has been over rated. He has barely been even average over his career. But fans see 4 GG's and say, see, he is a great defensive shortstop :rolleyes:
Unfortunately Ernie "Let's Play Two" Banks is more of a 1B than a SS and his 122 OPS+ is nothing to write home about at that position. Jeter's OPS+ so far is 121, the same as it was five seasons into his career (learned by checking Ramirez' first five seasons against everyone else's, not something I knew off the top of my head ;) ) demonstrating his remarkably consistent offensive performance at a very high level for a SS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Also on Jeter, while his counting number will increase - things seen as his offensives str like avg and obp are probably going to decline depending on just how long he plays. With his rep he could linger on for 3 or 4 years as a 270/320/400 guy.
Before Wagner hit that phase of his career he was at 341/406/493 (160 OPS+).
Jeters strengths may actually not look as good at the end of his career.
Banks had an unquestionably higher peak than Jeter, but people do tend to forget that his career was split nearly exactly in half - the first half being a great offensive shortstop (1953-1961) and the second half being a mediocre offensive first basemen (1962-1971).Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Where does Cal Ripken rank as SS HGM?
Certainly he will never overtake Vaughan's OPS+, but by the time all is said and done barring disaster, he will have exceeded Vaughan's offensive value due to more playing time. Wagner is and will remain in a league of his own as far as SS go, because barring disaster, A-Rod will probably finish up with more games at 3B than at SS. Jeter would probably have to play another 15 years at the same level he has played his first 15 and that my friends ain't happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
Here was my ranking of the Hall of Merit shortstops that I did last year:Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
- Honus Wagner
- Cal Ripken, Jr.
- Arky Vaughan
- George Davis
- Bill Dahlen
- Robin Yount
- Luke Appling
- Joe Cronin
- George Wright
- Alan Trammell
- Ozzie Smith
- Ernie Banks
- Pee Wee Reese
- Lou Boudreau
- Bobby Wallace
- Jack Glasscock
- Joe Sewell
- Hughie Jennings
- John Ward
I removed the Negro Leaguers from that list, as well as Dickey Pearce, who played primarily in the 1860's.
Vaughan and Ripken could easily be flip-flopped. I think by the end of Jeter's career, he'll be 2nd. Right now, I'd rate him fourth probably.
Hanley Ramirez has a shot at challenging Wagner, but that's obviously a long way off.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Jeter can really overtake Cal Ripken? Is that only because Jeter played longer at SS than Ripken?
Are you asking as a hitter or as an overall player? Because his defense (very underrated) really pulls him up overall and his offense, while not elite overall was nothing to sneeze at for a SS.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Basically entering Ripken into context when you guys are saying when Jeter is done he can overtake Vaughn as #2 SS. I thought Ripken really is 2nd best of all time, so I was just wanting clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Jeter's been more consistent at such a high level. Ripken had three years - 1983, 1984, 1991 - that I think are better than Jeter's best year - 1999. Jeter has had more years at a All-Star level caliber, though. After 1991, Ripken was no longer an elite player. He was essentially a league average hitter with solid defense at that point, and played out his career from that point on as such. Good player, certainly, but not a HoF-level. 1991 and prior he was obviously an amazing player. Jeter's been able to sustain a similar level longer, though. As I said, as of now, Jeter is behind Ripken, but Jeter's showing no signs of slowing down and is still a HoF level player at age 35.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
In that context, I think we were discussing them as offensive players, not overall players. Vaughan was better than Ripken offensively, but Ripken was better once you account for everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Let's look at WAR.
Career WAR:
Honus Wagner 134.7
Derek Jeter 62.2
Cal Ripken 89.8
Arky Vaughan 75.6
Wagner is quite obviously in a class by himself. Jeter's figure does not include 2009. An educated guess of his 2009 WAR would probably be something between 6.5/7, which would put him around 69 overall.
So, of course, Jeter will have to pad on a few more years at a level similar to his recent play in order to catch Ripken in total WAR. He's only about a year or so away from catching Vaughan.