Doc Holliday Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 He carried the club when Chipper went down. It was him and a bunch of kids out there (sans Julio Franco). He led that team in the batters box and in the field. There's just no denying it. 1061731[/snapback] I did not say he was not the best player on the Braves this year, because he was (but that was only because Chippers injury as he was having a better year than Andruw). But he WAS not the best player in the N.L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 But when one considers how much more the Braves had to lean on Jones to win their division, I don't think that it's "dumb" to give Jones the NL MVP. 1062306[/snapback] Two points--the Cardinals won 100 games to the Braves 90 games even though both teams won their division. Are you saying that those extra 10 wins don't matter at all? (It seems that that is what you are implying). But to get to the main point about how much a player has contributed to his team's wins, we can actually go to the statistic called "win shares" that was developed for pretty much exactly this purpose. Here are the win-shares for 2005: http://www.hardballtimes.com/winshares/index.php (hint: If at first you don't see Andruw Jones on the list it means you haven't scrolled far enough) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 what you're basically saying is that the best player in the league CAN'T win it if he's on the best team. he has to be the best player on a marginal team so you can say look how crappy they'd be without him. that's weetodded. 1040699[/snapback] this is indeed the logic for saying jones is more valuable than pujols. wetodded to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 But to get to the main point about how much a player has contributed to his team's wins, we can actually go to the statistic called "win shares" that was developed for pretty much exactly this purpose. (hint: If at first you don't see Andruw Jones on the list it means you haven't scrolled far enough) 1062578[/snapback] I scrolled down and saw... David Eckstein ranked over Chris Carpenter Paul Konerko (another high-homer, low-OBP guy) ranked over Mark Buehrle, Tad Iguchi, and Scott Podsednik Gary Sheffield ranked over Mariano Rivera The "win shares" statistic is a great example of why MVPs are awared by people, rather than computers. It also explains the colossal failure of the BCS. What's your beef with Andruw Jones? Did he bonk your wife or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 What's your beef with Andruw Jones? Did he bonk your wife or something? 1062676[/snapback] wiegie is a homer defending a Card? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 What's your beef with Andruw Jones? Did he bonk your wife or something? 1062676[/snapback] Well, not quite... He had his runners in scoring position, but couldn't drive them in. (I actually think Jones is a very good player, but the main reason he is getting consideration at all is because he hit 51 homers. I know that chicks dig the long-ball, but in terms of actual worth to his team, Pujols clearly dominated--without Pujols the Cardinals may not have made the playoffs this year--but because he was so good, even with all the injuries that the Cardinals faced (Rolen, Walker, Sanders, Molina, etc.) the Cards still strolled into the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 (edited) wiegie is a homer defending a Card? 1062745[/snapback] Well, that may explain a few things... When I'm not rooting for the ChiSox, I root for the Cards as well. Edmonds and Walker are two of my all-time favorite players. (I actually think Jones is a very good player, but the main reason he is getting consideration at all is because he hit 51 homers. I know that chicks dig the long-ball, but in terms of actual worth to his team, Pujols clearly dominated--without Pujols the Cardinals may not have made the playoffs this year--but because he was so good, even with all the injuries that the Cardinals faced (Rolen, Walker, Sanders, Molina, etc.) the Cards still strolled into the playoffs. 1062749[/snapback] You make a good point about Jones' BA (especially with RISP) being a bit low for an MVP. But he also hit 5 more homers and drove in 11 more runs than Pujuols. Pujols is definitely the better player and clearly put up better overall stats this season (especially OBP), but the Cards have about 7 good-to-great pitchers, while the Braves only have two. Right or wrong, Jones deserves serious consideration because of the situation he was in. Pujols could've hit .280 with 30 homers and 80 RBIs and the Cards probably still would've won their division. On the other hand, the pitching-depleted Braves needed someone like Jones to step up and drive in a bunch of runs to squeak (2 games) past Philly. Edited October 12, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 wiegie is a homer defending a Card? 1062745[/snapback] I am defending the integrity of a sport which has never before thought that a .263 hitter was worthy of the MVP. His batting average is 53rd out of the 66 "qualified" batters in the NL. His batting average with runners in scoring position is 175th out of the 196 batters that came to the plate with RISP 50 or more times. His batting average is 72cd out of the 106 batters that came to plate at least 50 times with RSIP and 2 out. I just don't see how it is fathomable that he could be the MVP with those types of numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I am defending the integrity of a sport which has never before thought that a .263 hitter was worthy of the MVP. 1062828[/snapback] Of course, MLB has given an admitted steroid-user seven MVPs, so I'm not sure that they have much integrity left at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 But he... drove in 11 more runs than Pujols. 1062805[/snapback] Jones led the league in plate appearences with RISP (he came up to the plate with RISP forty-four times more than Pujols did. Pujols did almost as well as Jones in terms of RBIs with a whole lot less to work with. You could replace Andruw Jones with pretty much an average MLB outfielder and the Braves would have finished within a couple of games of where they did. There is no way that the Cardinals come anywhere near winning 100 games without Pujols. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 Of course, MLB has given an admitted steroid-user seven MVPs, so I'm not sure that they have much integrity left at this point. 1062858[/snapback] So, we do agree upon something! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 You could replace Andruw Jones with pretty much an average MLB outfielder and the Braves would have finished within a couple of games of where they did. 1062942[/snapback] or you could put pujols in his spot in the braves' order, and they'll finish 10 games higher. but even though pujols is the better player, jones is more valuable because the team he hit .260 for has less pitching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 (edited) You could replace Andruw Jones with pretty much an average MLB outfielder and the Braves would have finished within a couple of games of where they did. 1062942[/snapback] I didn't realize that "average MLB outfielder" could drive in 128 runs. Jones led the league in plate appearences with RISP (he came up to the plate with RISP forty-four times more than Pujols did. Big deal. Sammy Sosa swung for the fences and struck out with RISP all the time, yet that doesn't mean that he didn't deserve the MVP in '98. He struck out an astronomical 171 times that year (with only 73 BB). There is no way that the Cardinals come anywhere near winning 100 games without Pujols. Any team with THAT much pitching could win 90 games, which would've still put them in first place. The White Sox, who didn't have a single .300 hitter, scored 64 less runs than the Cards, yet still managed to win 99. Anaheim scored 44 fewer runs, and they won 95 games. Pujols is a great player, but the Cards didn't win 100 games because of him. They won because of their pitching... Carpenter: 21-5, 2.83 ERA Mulder: 16-8, 3.64 ERA Morris: 14-10, 4.11 ERA Suppan: 16-10, 3.57 ERA Marquis: 13-14, 4.13 ERA Reyes: 62.7 IP, 2.15 ERA Isringhausen: 59 IP, 39 SV, 2.14 ERA Edited October 12, 2005 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 I scrolled down and saw... David Eckstein ranked over Chris Carpenter Paul Konerko (another high-homer, low-OBP guy) ranked over Mark Buehrle, Tad Iguchi, and Scott Podsednik Gary Sheffield ranked over Mariano Rivera The "win shares" statistic is a great example of why MVPs are awared by people, rather than computers. It also explains the colossal failure of the BCS. 1062676[/snapback] Ignoring the position players vs. pitchers discussion because it is irrelevant, it is interesting to note that you are arguing that the "win-share" statistic is messed up because it ranks a "high-homer, low OBP" guy over some players that you feel are better. So you are saying that the statistic is biased in favor of "high-homer, low OBP" guys -- which makes Andruw Jones' low ranking even more pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Ignoring the position players vs. pitchers discussion because it is irrelevant, it is interesting to note that you are arguing that the "win-share" statistic is messed up because it ranks a "high-homer, low OBP" guy over some players that you feel are better. So you are saying that the statistic is biased in favor of "high-homer, low OBP" guys -- which makes Andruw Jones' low ranking even more pathetic. 1063321[/snapback] No, I'm just saying that the "win-share" statistic is crap and doesn't really mean anything. Man, Andruw Jones must've done something REALLY bad to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I didn't realize that "average MLB outfielder" could drive in 128 runs. 1063218[/snapback] Carlos Lee drove in 114. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Carlos Lee drove in 114. 1063738[/snapback] Carlos Lee's much better than "average." He's played at a high level for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 you know what i think is an underlying factor in these instances where a clearly inferior player wins MVP over a clearly superior player? i think people have a feeling that the pujols's and the bonds either already have their accolades or will get them in the future...and they look at the kents and joneses and say, this is an absolute career year for these guys, they'll never be in consideration again. and i think that weighs into peoples' thinking, either overtly or subliminally. and it comes out cloaked in these incredibly stupid arguments like giving it to jones over pujols because pujols is on a team with better pitching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 and it comes out cloaked in these incredibly stupid arguments like giving it to jones over pujols because pujols is on a team with better pitching. 1066494[/snapback] I think it's fair to say that, given the Cardinals' excess of strong pitching, they didn't necessarily need a guy like Pujols to win their division. On the other hand, a team like the Braves is going to more-strongly rely on a guy who can drive in 128 runs. No argument that Pujols put up better overall numbers than Jones and you can call it "stupid" if you want, but I think it's understandable. If ones takes into account OBP, McGwire had a significantly better season than Sosa in '98. But the MVP went to Sosa because his team was in contention. Is that fair to McGwire? No. But, the MVP award is going to the player (almost always a hitter, which isn't fair, either) who was most critical to his team getting to the post-season. So, right or wrong, that immediately takes McGwire out of the race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 I think it's fair to say that, given the Cardinals' excess of strong pitching, they didn't necessarily need a guy like Pujols to win their division. On the other hand, a team like the Braves is going to more-strongly rely on a guy who can drive in 128 runs. 1066546[/snapback] The Cardinals don't win 100 games without Pujols, maybe, and it is a maybe, they win 90 and still make the playoffs without him, but they sure as hell don't win 100 and they almost certainly don't get home-field advantage throughout the NL playoffs without him. I'm just confused by the definition of an MVP as being the best player on a team that makes the playoffs by the smallest amount which is what you seem to be arguing for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 If ones takes into account OBP, McGwire had a significantly better season than Sosa in '98. But the MVP went to Sosa because his team was in contention. Is that fair to McGwire? No. But, the MVP award is going to the player (almost always a hitter, which isn't fair, either) who was most critical to his team getting to the post-season. So, right or wrong, that immediately takes McGwire out of the race. 1066546[/snapback] Yep, but what you are arguing is that if the 98 Cardinals had had better pitching and hence won their division by a decent amount (and the Cubs still took the WC) that McGwire should also not have won the MVP because the team probably would have made the playoffs without him. So your rational is that MVPs can only come from teams that barely make the playoffs--is that right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 So your rational is that MVPs can only come from teams that barely make the playoffs--is that right? 1066779[/snapback] My rationale is that the MVP is typically the one person who puts a borderline team on his shoulders and carries them into the playoffs. If it were up to me, I'd give it to Roger Clemens. Mariano Rivera would also be high on my list, given how badly the high-priced Yankees starters pitched at times and how awful the rest of their bullpen was. Take Rivera off the team and BoSox take the East, with the Indians taking the Wild Card. The Cards didn't NEED Pujols to win the NL Central. As the ChiSox and Angels demonstrated, you don't need a monster slugger in your lineup to win 95+ games IF you have stellar pitching (which the Cardinals do). On the other hand, the Braves didn't have a healthy Chipper for a good portion of the season, had a bunch of young players who can't hit in the lineup, and had mediocre-to-poor pitching outside of Smoltz and Hudson. Hence Andruw Jones is a reasonable MVP candidate (perhaps not the most deserving, but a reasonable vote). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 14, 2005 Author Share Posted October 14, 2005 Hence Andruw Jones is a reasonable MVP candidate (perhaps not the most deserving, but a reasonable vote). 1066885[/snapback] Now we're starting to get somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 Now we're starting to get somewhere. 1066953[/snapback] I'm going to root for Andruw Jones from now on just to spite you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 sure. he also can't carry pujols' jock in terms of value to his team, no matter how you try and add it up. 1061767[/snapback] Keep Pujol's jock out of this conversation, thank you. Your statement is so ridiculiously flawed. The guy played with a bunch of college aged kids, led them, busted out HR after HR, gold glove defense every day. He's a gamer and he brings it. Pujols is a stud, not taking away from him. He also had a solid group of veterans to play with. It's no contest. But then again anyone fixated on the jockstrap of Albert the Great doesn't hold any clout with me anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.