National League MVP -- Final Answer?

using the ballpark rating on ESPN (from STATS) and adjusting each pitcher to a a 1.0 ballprak rating

Instead of 25 HRs and 234 hits in 215 IP, Francis would have given up 19 HRs and 205 hits, while Peavy would have given up 17 Hrs and 193 hits in 223 IP compared to 13 and 169, Walks should stay about the same

In runs Peavy would increase from 67 to 83 and ER from 63 to 78
Francis would decrease from 103 to 86 and from 101 to 85.

New overall stat lines:

IP H HR R ER ERA WHIP
Peavy 223 193 17 83 78 3.15 1.17
Francis 215 205 19 86 85 3.56 1.25

 

Two. Larry Walker and Larry Wayne "Chipper" Jones.

 

There is one Coors Field factor you aren't accounting for, though:

Pitchers cannot get a ball to break worth a damn.

 

Just one Zoilo, though.

 

And whenever a guy named Larry wins the MVP, a guy named Pedro Martinez wins the Cy Young.

 

No, four. Larry (Lawrence) "Yogi" Berra. And Laughin' Larry Doyle.

 

Damn you buckdubs, Pedro didn't win the Cy Young back then.

 

Fuck. Didn't know that was Yogi's name. And who the fuck is Larry Doyle? Hell, spnited was only five when he won the MVP.

 

My point is that before you vote for an MVP, you have to ask: "What is an MVP?" Part of the way to get the answer to that question is to look at history. In recent history, MVPs are guys who hit in the middle of the order.

I'm not saying you have to abandon your own personal beliefs to go with the crowd. It's just one other item to put in the Holliday column when weighing the factors.

Maybe I think Jake Peavy doesn't deserve the Cy Young because he didn't pitch a single complete game, but history tells me that anyone who leads the league in wins, Ks and ERAs is the Cy Young winner, so if I'm going to go against that, I'd better have a damn good reason.

Look, there is no right answer here. We all have our opinions and all are valid.

I love Rollins and I wouldn't mind if he won. Whoever finishes 2nd is goign to have a hard time claiming he should have won. Same goes for NL Rookie, by the way. (Tulowitzki or Braun)

 

Well said, BB, but I don't know how much past trends -- make no mistake, we're talking about trends here, not traditional consensuses -- should affect one's idea of an MVP. The choices for who wins will always be debatable, but I don't think your personal definition of what makes an MVP should vary based on those trends, see. ... I might say Holliday is MVP, but it shouldn't be because X number of previous MVPs hit in that position in the lineup or were his particular height or some such variable trend.

EDIT: Personally, my definition of the MVP is the most indispensable player who makes the greatest impact on his team, with the added criteria being that he has to be among the best individual players in the league and -- except in the rare case of a player who is overwhelmingly the best individual player in the league -- he has to play on one of the best teams in the league. (I would make that exception for an A-Rod, but not for a Dawson.)

Doesn't have to be the best individual player in the league, necessarily, and doesn't have to play on the best team in the league. But has to be among the best players and his team has to be among the best teams (I wouldn't penalize a David Wright just because the Mets finished one game out of a playoff spot -- although because it occurred the way it did, this case is different).

 

Left field, after first base, is where NL managers go to hide their worst defenders. Dime a dozen.

Shortstop, conversely, is the toughest position on the diamond.

 

Peavy on the road: 10 wins, 2.57 ERA, a 2.4-percent uptick in ERA from his home numbers (2.51 ERA)