My Insignificant MVP Vote

Clearly, the NL MVP should go to Sosa. His RBIs and Batting Avg., the most important 2 stat combo in my mind, are way better than Bonds. Pujols gets the nod for intangibles and contending team factors, if you subscribe to that type of thinking, but Sosa is clearly the best choice for NL MVP, unlike 1998, when it should have been McGwire. Sorry, I just had to slip that last part in there. Good luck, Sammy.

[NetShrine]

The more I think about it, Bonds may be having the best offensive year in the last 75 years or so. That's without looking at the numbers. I think he has to get it over Sosa. Now, if the Cubs stayed in 1st place, maybe I could give Sammy some more points.............

Nice of him to trot with the flag the other day on his HR.

[BuzzBuzzard]

I just don't know how you can't give it to Bonds. This is one of the best offensive seasons ever. Record breaking, potentially, in more than one way. I can't turn my back on that.

[NetShrine]

Some could make the argument that the best seasons ever for a hitter were:

1. Ruth 1921
2. Ruth 1923
3. Ruth 1920
4. Ted Williams 1941
5. Ruth 1924 and/or 1927
7. Gehrig 1927
8. Ruth 1926
9. Mantle 1957

Bonds may be added to the list at the end of this year.

I just can't agree with that. His BA just isn't high enough to put him in the same class as Ruth or any of those other seasons. No doubt his On Base percentage reflects something, but I don't think it can be said that it lowers his batting average, and that quite simply shows the frequency with which he gets hits. Plus, take a look at Hornsby, if you want to talk great seasons. 1922 for instance. A triple crown, .401 average, 152 RBIs and 42 homers. Only Ruth can claim to have mixed that kind of power with anything close to that kind of average for a season (Except Ted Williams in '41, but even he didn't drive in near as many runs). Anyhow, back to Bonds, he'd have to bat at least .330 or .350 before I'd even give him a second thought next to those guys. Heck, McGwire had almost as many walks, almost as high an average, WAY more RBI's, and lets assume Bonds breaks the record, almost as many homers, and everybody and their dog said Sosa should win the MVP, despite the walk disparity and fewer chances in at bats that Mac had. Seemingly only St. Louisans thought McGwire was even the best that year, and nobody even mentioned him as having one of the 5 or ten greatest seasons of all time like they are for Bonds. When you look at the numbers, they are so similar between the two, and yet Bonds is being recognized in glowing terms amidst the immortals, while McGwire "just hit homers". If Bonds had a career high batting average or thereabouts, we could talk, but he has clearly sacrificed some points for extra homers. Since he can't do both at a level reminiscent of Ruth, I don't think it is fitting to mention him with Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, or Gehrig in this discussion.

[hmrsf]

Now be nice to the lady. No taking my head off.

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by Throwback
I just can't agree with that. His BA just isn't high enough to put him in the same class as Ruth or any of those other seasons. No doubt his On Base percentage reflects something, but I don't think it can be said that it lowers his batting average, and that quite simply shows the frequency with which he gets hits.

T-back - - there are many who go with the notion that Batting Average is a misleading stat and that OBA is much better in terms of a players worth. Here's the pitch.

You have to score runs to win. No one has ever won a game in which they were shutout.

You have to reach base in order to later score a run. No one has ever scored a run who didn't reach safely.

Therefore, reaching base is extremely important in order to win - - and it would make sense that the more you reach base, the more worth you have as a batter.

OK, look at two hitters:

Benito Sartucci has a .301 Batting Average. Mickey Teapots has a .240 Batting Average. Most people think that Benito is a million times better than Mickey.

However, Benito is a hacker - he never walks. His On Base Average, despite his .301 BA, is .333.

Mickey, on the other hand, has an excellent eye at the plate. He has over 115 walks this season. So, while his batting average is only .240, his On Base Average is .400.

Who is helping his team more? Benito, who reaches base 1/3 of his Plate Appearances, or Mickey, who reaches base 40% of the time he steps to the plate? Clearly, Mickey is helping more.

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by hmrsf
Bonds and Clemens......period Now be nice to the lady. No taking my head off.

Actually, I think Clemens should be MVP even more than he should be CY Young.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Let's not head down that path again. We've covered that and we all agree that someone playing in only 1/5 of his team's games can't be MVP. Right?

[NetShrine]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Let's not head down that path again. We've covered that and we all agree that someone playing in only 1/5 of his team's games can't be MVP. Right?

Buzz - most experts will tell you that pitcher is the most important position on the field. He controls the game.

Most times, it's the pitcher that wins or loses the game. A-Rod can play 162 games, but, there will be many games where nothing he does has any impact on the game to the level that a pitching performance can have............therefore, if you have a pitcher like Clemens, were the team wins 95% of the games which he starts, that's pretty valuable - no matter that he plays just every fifth day.

[nyy26wc]

You don't win games based on batting average. You don't win games based on getting hits.

You win games based on scoring runs. And there isn't that much correlation between AVG and runs.

I once again disagree. The only way to drive in a runner with a walk is with the bases full. Batting average does not take walks into account because in many cases a walk is NOT as good as a hit. Even a single with a runner on is almost always better than a walk. Also, walk figures can be decieving, because sometimes they're just putting you on base to set up a double play or the guy behind you isn't as good and the run doesn't mean anything. I mean honestly, who are you going to want up with two outs and a runner on first with the pitcher on deck? You'll take Benito every time. You'll take him because he's the better hitter, by far.

Or lets put it this way: Not many pitchers are going to walk enough batters that hits aren't necessary to win. You're not going to score a run too often with three walks in an inning. With three hits, though, you can bet on it. Walks are nice and can set a table, but to paraphrase Queen, Hits make the rockin' world go round.

If OBP is a good indicator of a hitters worth because a player with a low average but high OBP is helping more, we may as well count errors in OBP as well. They're getting on and helping, and they even put the ball in play. There's no real difference according to that argument.

[NetShrine]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one T-back.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Originally posted by NetShrine
therefore, if you have a pitcher like Clemens, were the team wins 95% of the games which he starts, that's pretty valuable - no matter that he plays just every fifth day.

I have never disagreed with you more. A starting pitcher factors in 20% of a team's games. How can such a contributor be MVP?

[BuzzBuzzard]

I was thinking about this debate more as I showered (there is a visual for you). Let's take Paul Bako, or whomever Maddux's personal catcher is these days. Say he only plays when Maddux pitches, call it 35 games. Following along Clemens numbers, let's say Bako does something to contribute in 60% of those game (Clemens 21 wins in 35 starts). So let's say Bako hits 21 homers in those games. Some of those will be meaningless HRs as are some of Clemens starts (see previous argument on run support). So let's say 14 of the 21 homers are game winners. Would you say Bako is league MVP?