Baseball Thread IV

I'd think that if the Royals offered Moore the job, that could be better for him because that job is open now and it doesn't seem that the Nationals would make a move until the end of the season when ownership sets up their management team... I get the impression that the Nationals don't have a firm plan to be in place. Also, if I were in Moore's shoes the Royals would be better because they want him now while he would be one of several candidates for the Nationals.

 

Gold, you're certainly entitled to disagree, as is anyone else. I disagreed with the other voters that year and had good discussions with some of them along the same lines you wrote here. But if you were a voter back then, and honestly looked to older, veteran writers (and voters), without any official guidelines, do you know for sure what you would have done. Charlie Feeney (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) told me he never voted for anyone for MVP unless his team was at least in contention.

As I said, Dawson was clearly the Player of the Year, and there are awards for that -- AP Player of the Year, Sporting News Player of the Year etc. We, in the NY chapter of the BBWAA even gave him our player of the year award, which I presented at our dinner. But I still maintain he couldn't have been most valuable when his team finished where it did. That is simply my interpretation of the award and what I felt was the correct thing to do.

And Bubbler, I can't talk specifically about your question on ARod because I covered the Natonal League all year. It would seem to me, though, that the same consideration should  have been made and someone from a contending team might have won. We didn't get to vote every year, by the way. Each chapter spreads the votes around so all beat people get a fair chance.      

   

 

Casty, I have always felt the "contenders only" argument rests on an understandable fallacy that ignores a salient point-lousy teams can indeed be worse than they already are. Last place isn't the worst possible outcome-that'd be 0-162. A player who excels on a bad team is in my opinion MORE valuable to his club than one who excels on a good team. When the bad team's superstar doesn't produce, they have no change to win at all.
I have felt this way ever since 1972, when Steve Carlton went 27-10 for the 59-103 Phillies. God did that team stink. But when Lefty took the mound, they were one of the winningest teams in the game. How could one man be more valuable than that?
As you know there are no set standards for MVP voting, hence all the arguments. There are times when the leader of a winner deserves it, and times when a more productive loser should get it. To my mind plugging in the RBI leader of a pennant winner is lazy thinking, which you did NOT do by choosing Ozzie in '87.

 

I agree with Michael.

With all due respect, Casty, just because Charlie Feeney did it a certain way doesn't make it a universal truth.

I think if the performance is close, sure, give the edge to the guy who helped put a team over the top. But if a player produces head and shoulders above the competition, as was the case with ARod a few years ago, why should he be out of MVP consideration because the Rangers had a dogmeat pitching staff? That's never made any sense to me when it's an individual award.

 

Brad Penny just had a nice dugout eruption after getting yanked after 4 1/3. The Dodgers were up 8-1 at the start of the inning and Penny gave up six hits in a row before Grady pulled him with the score 8-5.

 

Awww, you blew the win? Get someone out, biatch.

 

The MVP voting discussion is a good one, and I respect all your opinions. But without official guidelines, a voter has to decide what is most important in deciding the award. I still believe what I did was right -- and Sixty-nine, I didn't do it just because of what Charlie Feeney said, it was more an overview from about a dozen veteran writers. I still believe the emphasis should be on value, and not simply stats. That is probably the reason Joe Torre has said on a number of occasions that Mariano Rivera is his most valuable player. It should be who each voter felt did more for his team that particular year.

BUT ... this is always an open discusson. And it seems to me today's voters -- a younger group, to be sure -- relies more on the player's season stats. It makes for good debates over the course of the winter, doesn't it?

 

i bet penny feels worse that the guy who relieved him needed one pitch to close out the inning.

 

I don't mean to pile on, casty ... lord knows you've been doing this long enough to know your stuff ... but it always was the Carlton example which sold me. Valuable, to me, means the player who is most responsible for his club's success -- whether they had a lot of success or not.

In fact, sometimes I wonder if the MVP shouldn't be from one of the bottom feeders more often. A Rivera, a Pujols, a Guerrero -- they have a lot of "protection" around them. There are many guys on those teams who can beat you. Say Jason Bay turns in a .320-40-120 year and the Pirates win 51 games. You've got to think they might have about 35 without him.

 

It's an okay argument, shot, but if the Pirates win 51 games with the year Bay will have under your scenario, what do they gain? And he wouldn't be penalized by not winning, he simply wouldn't be rewarded with this particular award. I would have to be convinced that MVP has nothing to do with the team's success before I'd change my mind on this.

(But don't worry, folks, I don't vote anymore.)

 

Odd move by Bobby Cox today. He double-switched Andruw Jones out of the game in the second inning with the Braves down 7-0 to the Dodgers. They eventually cut it to 8-5, and who knows what they would have done with Jones' bat still in the lineup. I know there are people on this board who think Willie Randolph never heard of the double-switch, but this seems to be going too far in the other direction.

 

Jones must've been injured or fighting an injury for Cox to make that move.