12/03/24
November 14, 2005
It's on: Arod edges Ortiz for AL MVP honors
I think this debate has played out enough over the past weeks and even months that there's not likely to be much of a hue and cry over the result. For a look at a pure hitting-based analysis of the MVP awards, see here.
posted by holden at 01:54 PM on November 14, 2005
You beat me to it, holden. Hard to argue with those numbers.
posted by yerfatma at 02:00 PM on November 14, 2005
Two guys who had great years, statistically. I'm a Yankee fan but wouldn't have even batted an eye if Ortiz would have taken the award. For the record, of course, I do tend to give a big edge to someone who plays defense every game, and plays it fantastically.
posted by dyams at 02:04 PM on November 14, 2005
Do Yankee fans even like Rodriguez?
posted by xmutex at 02:31 PM on November 14, 2005
No
posted by HATER 187 at 02:37 PM on November 14, 2005
yes.
posted by goddam at 02:59 PM on November 14, 2005
Sox fans don't....thats for sure....
posted by sinisterfoot at 03:04 PM on November 14, 2005
I dont mind A-rod getting the MVP. What bothers me are the "experts" who call A-rod a great fielding third baseman. A-rod is a great stop, as a third baseman I have seen him miss-play alot of balls. Down the stretch he was a clutch defender but I watch many yankee losses whre A-rod missed balls that other would have had. I am glad that he is the MVP but please dont call him the next Brooks Robinson fielding wise!
posted by daddisamm at 03:16 PM on November 14, 2005
I'd say he's at least better than average at 3rd...
posted by tron7 at 03:27 PM on November 14, 2005
I don't like him as a person, feel he has demonstrated a distinct lack of class on several occasions and believe he thinks that there is, in fact, an "I" in team. That being said, he is an outstanding baseball player and is absolutely deserving of this year's MVP. Personality judgements and team loyalty have nothing to do with MVP. It is based on how well you played the game and A-Rod plays the game very well indeed. The statistics, which are the best tangible way of gauging a single player's importance, don't lie. Ortiz - who is among my favorite players in the professional sports today - also had an excellent season. A-Rod's season was better.
posted by Joey Michaels at 03:29 PM on November 14, 2005
I think over the years the term MVP has been bastardized and turned into a popularity contest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the initial intent of awarding an MVP to be in recognition of the person who most contributed to their team's successes? When we speak of MVP now, to whom is the player most valuable to? The team, the fans, the sponsors, MLB, TV ratings? Has it just become a purely stat driven award? What about intangibles that don't show up in the stats? Derrick Lee was one of the finest players in baseball this past season and he had great individual success. However, the Cubbies finished were they always finish. Was it right to even consider D Lee for NL MVP?
posted by willthrill72 at 03:41 PM on November 14, 2005
this yankee fan is still pissed he hit into that double play in the last game against the angels.
posted by flaunted at 03:42 PM on November 14, 2005
Well, if the MVP is given according to the stats then Derrek Lee should get the NL MVP. If not, then this is all about popularity(which it shouldn't). Derrek Lee had an outstanding year. He did whatever he could to help this team get into the playoffs(but they didn't), otherwise the cubs would of been last in their division by the way the team played. Yet Lee carried his team to atleast a fourth place. Reality: its all about team work!
posted by e&j2127 at 04:43 PM on November 14, 2005
I hate the Yankees. A lot. But you can't argue with Rodriguez winning all that much.
posted by chicobangs at 05:13 PM on November 14, 2005
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha- lmao!!!!!!!!
posted by redsoxrgay at 05:33 PM on November 14, 2005
e&j2127 -- If Derrek Lee does not get the MVP, it will not mean that "this is all about popularity." It may mean many other things, including, for instance, that voters are tied to the concept that an MVP should come from a playoff team or a team with a winning record. I'm not saying that such an approach is warranted; I'm just saying that there is more to this than just a popularity contest. Certainly, Rodriguez winning over Ortiz in the AL puts the lie to the popularity contest theory.
posted by holden at 05:45 PM on November 14, 2005
A-Rod deserves to win. I can't see a DH winning when he's only playing half the time, if that. It's like a reliever winning the cy young. A travesty.
posted by samtana at 07:17 PM on November 14, 2005
Maybe this is the curse of the Rodrigo - as long as A-Rod is the most valuable of the Yankees they will never go to a World Series, much less win one.
posted by INOALOSER at 08:38 PM on November 14, 2005
I agree that the debate is pretty clear in the AL - ARod's season was just too good for a first place Yankees team to give it to Ortiz - despite Ortiz having a great year. ARod was just a little bit better overall at, well, everything. I like the quad that way. He beats Ortiz as a hitter - the contribution on the field as a 3rd baseman doesn't really even have to enter into it - and that more than pushes it over the top in Arod's favour. In the NL the debate is more interesting. Derek Lee had a monster year. No one in either league touched his numbers for a Cubs team that essentially couldn't keep a healthy pitching staff (again). He was the best hitter in the league. But, doesn't it seem clear that Pujols is the MVP? St. Louis was hurt all year and Pujols was the only constant along with Scrappy. And they never had a bad month. I guess the Quad illustrates the best hitter; but that may not necessarily mean MVP.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:15 PM on November 14, 2005
Maybe this is the curse of the Rodrigo - as long as A-Rod is the most valuable of the Yankees they will never go to a World Series, much less win one
I'm a Red Sox fan, and would love your comment to be true more than anything, but seriously now, who are you kidding?
D.Lee does have better numbers than Pujols across the board. It will be interesting to see if they give it to Lee for the best numbers, or Pujols for being in a PlayOff Team. Either way, I would not feel anyone has been robbed.
posted by zippinglou at 10:09 PM on November 14, 2005
For a look at a pure hitting-based analysis of the MVP awards, see here. So are we in agreement that MVP equals best stats? I have no problem if that's the case. I have a problem with the "most valuable" part. One does not necessarily mean the other. I don't have a problem with arod winning, even if I'd rather face him in the clutch than a third of the yankees lineup, because hey, this isn't 'mr. clutch'. But if we're gonna throw out stats and leave it at that, why vote? We already have awards for best offensive and defensive players. Is the mvp simply the best all round player? It all seems a little redundant. I thought maybe there might be more that goes into mvp. But if this is true: The statistics, which are the best tangible way of gauging a single player's importance, don't lie. ...then let's call it the MIS (most impressive stats) award. Why bring the human element into it at all? Just take the quad or whatever, find the leader, use defensive stats as a tie breaker and bingo, mvp. I can't see a DH winning when he's only playing half the time, if that. I completely agree, unless that dh is more important to his team than anyone else is to their team, then I disagree.
posted by justgary at 12:39 AM on November 15, 2005
Clearly there is no problem with a DH winning the award, since the guy who came in second was a DH - so throw that junk out the window. I think it's simply a case where ARod's totals were just a little bit better. However, Ortiz was easily the better clutch hitter. So it just seems to me to be how you measure the idea of MVP. Is it for the best year - looked at as a whole? Or, the best aspects of a year that would propel someone with lower totals above the guy with the best year? I think that those people who like the old school stats - RISP, AVG in situations and close games, etc. would have to go with Oritz - and those new school guys who look at runs created and win shares would have to go with ARod. And in this case, for a few people at least, the clincher may have been the glove. Just because ARod played a very good third. Not just because he contributes to the defence, but that he was better than most. But MVPs are so rarely awarded to good defensive players - it really doesn't factor in it that much - consider Canseco; Bonds.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:16 AM on November 15, 2005
Clearly there is no problem with a DH winning the award, since the guy who came in second was a DH - so throw that junk out the window. If writers refused to vote him first because he's a DH, regardless of what most valuable means, how can you throw that out the window? Since he received 11 first place votes it's clear that some people don't have a problem with it.
posted by YukonGold at 08:24 AM on November 15, 2005
But MVPs are so rarely awarded to good defensive players - it really doesn't factor in it that much - consider Canseco; Bonds. Bonds won three of his MVP awards the same years he won a Gold Glove award (which he won 8 times) - 1990, 1992, 1993 . However, I get your point. Even if he had a lead glove in the outfield, Bonds hitting would have carried him over the top for the MVP.
posted by grum@work at 09:29 AM on November 15, 2005
But MVPs are so rarely awarded to good defensive players - it really doesn't factor in it that much - consider Canseco; Bonds. In this instance, it's really that their offensive numbers are similar and it's a tie-breaker. Generally, there's one player who jumps ahead of the class; in this instance, there were two.
posted by dfleming at 09:37 AM on November 15, 2005
I'll confess my ignorance of the process. Here's what I want to know: are the voters given some set of fairly detailed criteria for MVP, or are they just voting based on their own standards? If the former, what are they...and if the latter, have any of them said anything about what their standards are?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:55 AM on November 15, 2005
Dear Voter: There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier. The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931: 1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense. 2. Number of games played. 3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort. 4. Former winners are eligible. 5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team. You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from one to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration. courtesy of larry.
posted by goddam at 10:10 AM on November 15, 2005
Well Yukon, if the DH is exempt from winning the MVP because he's 'half a player' as some have said - then why all the second place votes? Clearly Texiera and others are more worthy than Ortiz because of his DH status - but that isn't the case. If your willing to give a DH MVP votes - you're willing to consider him for the award. I don't think many writers left Ortiz of the ballot. If his DH status just means he can't beat ARod - but can beat all the others, well, that's some specious reasoning. There are a lot of other players on that list that aren't DH's and hence, would have contributed more than Ortiz (if you agree that a DH shouldn't be considered the same way as a position player). The arguement is falible in the face of the evidence. It seems clear to me that being a DH did not hurt Ortiz's chances.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:29 AM on November 15, 2005
The Boston Herald has some voter comments
posted by YukonGold at 10:54 AM on November 15, 2005
I was a DH in the minor leagues a long time back,and I will state here and now that I don't believe that a DH should win the MVP.There is a lot more to baseball than just hitting,but y'all already know that.I've just always thought that leather and legs along with a bat,are what makes the complete package.
posted by Tubby Fan at 10:55 AM on November 15, 2005
Thanks for that link goddam; I was going to chime in with the playoff team argument against D. Lee but it looks like it shouldn't fit. It made me interested to see of the last ten years which, if any, of the NL MVPs weren't on playoff teams. Non-playoff team winners in bold below: 2004 Barry Bonds San Francisco LF 2003 Barry Bonds San Francisco LF 2002 Barry Bonds San Francisco LF 2001 Barry Bonds San Francisco LF 2000 Jeff Kent San Francisco 2B 1999 Chipper Jones Atlanta 3B 1998 Sammy Sosa Chicago OF 1997 Larry Walker Colorado OF 1996 Ken Caminiti San Diego 3B 1995 Barry Larkin Cincinnati SS Bonds is pretty self-explanatory, while Walker's was due to him hitting .366, 49 HR, 130 RBI, and an amazing .720 SLG %. I guess D. Lee still has a chance. - Snare
posted by redsnare at 12:17 PM on November 15, 2005
A-Rod: "Feel my pain, you fucking thankless proles." Baseball Crank: "Feel his pain." Note: Quotation marks may contain editorializing in the place of direct quotes.
posted by yerfatma at 05:26 PM on November 15, 2005
Excellent links yerfatma. It's not that I don't think arod deserves it. It's that I think the award is a bit of a question mark. And I don't think any answer in this thread makes it clearer.
posted by justgary at 01:13 AM on November 16, 2005
ARod makes it so easy not to like him. From yerfatma's first link:"We can win three World Series, with me it's never going to be over," A-Rod said. "My benchmark is so high that no matter what I do, it's never going to be enough. ... Maybe when I retire is when all the critics will end."
posted by bperk at 06:37 AM on November 16, 2005
The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931: 1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense. Shouldn't voting rule #1 completely RULE out Ortiz, and how come it didn't? I guess rules ain't what they used to be.
posted by drevl at 12:33 PM on November 16, 2005
Not necessarily, drevl. Player A, strength of off/def: 7/2 Player B, strength of off/def: 10/0 If B's offense is more valuable to his team than A's offense and defense combined, then B is more valuable.
posted by cl at 01:13 PM on November 16, 2005
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort. I'd say #3 and Arod don't exactly match up.
posted by YukonGold at 01:59 PM on November 16, 2005
Ah - I'm not so sure ARod doesn't try (and loyallty? That WAS written in 1931). I mean, is the game so easy to him that he just puts the rest of the league to shame? I don't think so. You may hate him, but I don't think you can doubt that he is the best position player in the AL, and in the top three in baseball.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:50 PM on November 16, 2005
Shouldn't voting rule #1 completely RULE out Ortiz, and how come it didn't? I guess rules ain't what they used to be. No it doesn't. There's no defense when it comes to ortiz, so it gives a huge advantage to arod. But it doesn't rule him out. You're adding more to the rule than is there. ARod makes it so easy not to like him. From yerfatma's first link:"We can win three World Series, with me it's never going to be over," A-Rod said. "My benchmark is so high that no matter what I do, it's never going to be enough. ... Maybe when I retire is when all the critics will end." As polished as arod is, he never comes across very well, not like say, Jeter. He always comes across as "poor me".
posted by justgary at 05:35 PM on November 16, 2005
Not a real big surprise....Papi is a DH mostly...the Rodney Dangerfields of baseball....sure, they can give you a smile here and there, make U laugh, but if you cannot be used in the field on an everyday basis.... (Although - I find it hard to believe he would do worse than Manny playing the field, but maybe thats just me....)