the andre dawson hypothetical

Beltran is having an incredible offensive season: 4th in MLB in runs, 6th in HRs, 2nd in RBI (1st in NL), 8th in OPS, and one of two players (Soriano) with 30+ HRs and double digit SBs.

Add in his defensive prowess, and that he plays for the first place Mets, and he's my choice for NL MVP.

 

True, but he's only 12 games off of the only guy to come close since then.

It's not MVP-worthy but if you get up over 30 games and that's a hell of a streak. Especially in this day and age.

 

this debate always drives me nuts. it's most valuable player, not player of the year. i could never vote for a guy on a last place team or one that didn't contend until close to the end.

others counter my argument and say that an andre dawson - or hypothetically utley who hits in 57 while the phils are second but far out of the wild card - is still valuable because without him his team would've done much worse.

the only way i'd countenance that argument is if no one's individual performance stands out leaguewide and only one person  - the guy on the last place team - had a superb year. then i'd believe that even though his team won only 70 or so games, without him they'd have won about 40 so he's the most valuable.

 

Hey Leo...thanks, at least you gave an answer on how you would vote.
Apparently no one else here understands the term "hypothetical", which I guess is understandable from the "Toy department"

 

If I remember correctly, Dawson had that monster 1987 season in a year where there was no other real, clear cut choice... For some reason I remember that the voting wasn't even close...

If a guy leads the league in HR and RBI in the same season, they had better be a top five MVP candidate, I don't care if they're in first or last place...

 

I do think we'll see the day where 56 gets threatened and likely topped. Somebody will get into the 30+ range and catch a few breaks to get past Petey. And I think they'll actually see better pitches the closer they get. A pitcher who pitches around and walks him with a 49 or 51 game streak on the line would be vilified.

And shouldn't it really be the Most Valuable Player as long as your Team was in Championship Contention Award? I've always found that qualification rather odd (an opinion sure to be vilified as well by the board denizens, I'm sure). By strictest definition, the most valuable player would be the person who contributed the most to their team's successes. Or conversely whose team would have suffered the greatest from their not being a part of the team.

I would argue that the poster child for the true definition of MVP would be the year where Steve Carlton won 27 games and his team, the Phillies, end up with around 59 or so total wins.

 

yeah, i get it schmoe, but it's still interesting to have a discussion even if no one is specifically responding to the question of how they'd vote. maybe you should start a poll with one of the choices being 'chase utley if he hits in 57 consecutive games.'

 

I'd have no qualms about voting for a stats guy in a player of the year category, but MVP is something different and should include intangibles, which obviously are difficult/impossible to quantify.

David Ortiz right now is a near-lock to win the MVP award in the AL, but it's not because he has 37 homers and 100+ RBI. It's beacuse the man is so clutch it's unreal. If he had half his stats, yet still produced the walk-off game-winning hits on a regular basis, he'd still be the leading candidate. Obviously, it helps that he plays in Boston.

All too often, MVP awards are limited to the 3-4-5 hitters, when there are just as many 1-2 hitters (or pitchers! ) that are more valuable to their teams' successes.

 

As much as I like Pujols, Carlos Beltran is the most valuable player in the NL right now.

As for the AL, Big Papi should have it locked up.

 

Well, at least you're not being a dick about it.  :

I think hitting streaks are one of the most overrated things in baseball. It always the free-swinging guys who don't take walks. The feared and selective hitters rarely get four legitimate chances in a game to get a hit. Is it hard to put together a 30-plus game hitting streak? No doubt. But it's no more significant than a David Ortiz carrying his team on his shoulders.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak in 1941 is the most overated feat in baseball. It's incredibly difficult to hit in 56 in a row. I wouldn't expect to see anybody approach it in my lifetime. But DiMaggio's average during the streak, if I'm not mistaken, was .408 -- a more two points than Ted Williams hit over the entire season.

So that would be a no on Utley as MVP.

 

In 1987, Dawson beat runner-up Ozzie Smith (.303, 9 HR) by 100 points.

You're right, no one in the top 10 came close. Interestingly, Dale Murphy at No. 11 had as good a year as Dawson, if not better:

Hawk: .287, 49 HR, 137 RBI, .896 OPS for Cubs (76-85)
Murph: .295, 44 HR, 105 RBI, .997 OPS for Braves (69-92)

Murphy could have had his third MVP in seven years, and perhaps a spot in the Hall of Fame.

 

He hit five more home runs and drove in 32 more runs for a team that won seven more games. His season was better how, exactly?