Contrarian player of the year voting

Because in the paleozoic era (before Tiger), there would typically be maybe a handful of two-time winners and about three-dozen one-time winners per year.

The difference wasn't so pronounced.

 

Well, winning and consistency are criteria, and in certain years, you might have a number of good candidates. I'm just saying that there was no question this year.

If somebody didn't vote for him because he didn't play enough to win the Vardon, then I think that's wrong. There was clearly no better player in the world this year, period. A vote for anybody else was wrong -- not even a matter for debate.

 

I remember the guy who wouldn't vote for Tom Seaver for the Hall, because he said no player deserved to get 100 percent... I think it was a similar deal when one guy voted for Iverson for MVP while the rest went for Shaq...

In my mind, the NFL MVP should be unanimous. Would I be surprised if some voter picked Drew Brees? Not at all...

If Florida upsets Ohio State for the national title, how much do you want to bet that someone votes for Michigan No. 1 if they win the Rose Bowl. It will be absurd, but that never stopped people before...

 

If you think that's a near-perfect analogy, then you're a near-perfect moron.

You don't vote for batting champion. There is no correlation to slecting an MVP-type award like the won Tiger did and a title given to somebody purely based on math.

Your analogy blows.