12/21/24
November 19, 2007
ARod wins AL MVP award, but not unanimously.:
ARod got 26 of the 28 first place votes. The other two first place votes went to Magglio Ordonez of the Detroit Tigers. The voters who chose Ordonez over ARod? Writers from the Detroit News and Oakland Press (Pontiac, Michigan).
*cough*
I thought Magglio had a bigger impact on the Tigers than ARod did for the Yankees.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:58 PM on November 19, 2007
I thought Magglio had a bigger impact on the Tigers than ARod did for the Yankees. Every measurement (including the obvious raw stats like HR/XBH/OPS) I've come across says the opposite: Runs Created, Runs Created/27, Win Share, Win Probability Added, Win Probability Added (With Leverage).
posted by grum@work at 05:15 PM on November 19, 2007
Magglio led the league in MORP (most outstanding relaxed perm).
posted by holden at 05:19 PM on November 19, 2007
Magglio had a monster year, but I can't see an angle where he deserves the vote over A-Rod (and lord I'm trying). You can't say that NY was so talented that they would have made the playoffs without him. They wouldn't have. And Detroit didn't make the playoffs at all. You can't say A-Rod had more protection. Detroit was second in the league in hitting. I'm lost.
posted by justgary at 05:33 PM on November 19, 2007
Yeah well.. uh, Magglio has a cooler sounding name. MAGGG-LEEEE-YO! I know a few Alexes, I don't know any Magglios. That alone makes him mysterious and cooler, thus deserving of a few votes. Yeah... that's the ticket. You're welcome, YYM.
posted by jerseygirl at 05:38 PM on November 19, 2007
Clearly MAGGG-LEEEE-YO! (and I do that is how it should be spelled) was robbed. Two obvious reasons: 1. Never let facts get in the way of your opinion. 2. Its obvious that the Curtis Granderson contingent had a negative impact on MAGGG-LEEEE-YO's! chances.
posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 05:48 PM on November 19, 2007
What's (a) Arod-is it diametrical apposed to Brod.
posted by Janowitz at 05:51 PM on November 19, 2007
Magglio led the league in MORP (most outstanding relaxed perm). Good one. Seriously, though, any writer who didn't vote for A-Rod after the kind of season he put together should lose their voting privileges for a few years. If they can't get past their "homerism," Yankee hate, or whatever, they shouldn't be allowed to impact the vote. What if all the writers acted that way? You could have a situation where any number of players could win the MVP while the overwhelmingly deserving player is robbed. And this in no way takes away from Ordonez, who's a tremendous player.
posted by dyams at 05:53 PM on November 19, 2007
Every measurement (including the obvious raw stats like HR/XBH/OPS) I've come across says the opposite There you go again, crushing a young man's homerrific dreams with your cold, loveless facts. Monstrous. Simply monstrous.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:47 PM on November 19, 2007
Arod accounted for only 25.3 percent of his team's runs. Mags accounted for 25.7 percent of his team's runs. Hey, it's the best I can come up with.
posted by graymatters at 06:53 PM on November 19, 2007
Every measurement (including the obvious raw stats like HR/XBH/OPS) I've come across says the opposite I stand corrected.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:53 PM on November 19, 2007
Rodriguez didn't want to talk about his negotiations with the Yankees that are leading toward a $275 million, 10-year contract. "There is a finish line in sight," Rodriguez said, adding he would talk about the contract "when the time is right." I'm pretty sure there is a football game in Arizona, about the first week of Feb. We can talk about it then.
posted by BoKnows at 07:17 PM on November 19, 2007
Ying Yang Mafia, that must had been your worst comment ever I must say. It goes away from the clearly obvious. Its perplexing. A-Rod clear winner, should had been unanimously.
posted by STUNNER at 08:14 PM on November 19, 2007
I was trying to provide a possible rationale for voting for Magglio beyond the blatant homerism.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:00 PM on November 19, 2007
Ted Williams won the Triple Crown in '42 and '47 and didn't get the MVP those years - I don't think the fact that A-Rod did not get a unanimous vote is that out of line. At least A-Rod still got his MVP, unanimous or not.
posted by joe12pack at 09:05 PM on November 19, 2007
Seriously, though, any writer who didn't vote for A-Rod after the kind of season he put together should lose their voting privileges for a few years. "The MVP result was controversial, as Martínez received the most first-place votes of any player (8 of 28), but was totally omitted from the ballot of two sportswriters, New York's George King and Minneapolis' LaVelle Neal. The two writers argued that pitchers were not sufficiently all-around players to be considered. (However, George King had given MVP votes to two pitchers just the season before: Rick Helling and David Wells; King was the only writer to cast a vote for Helling, who had gone 20-7 with a 4.41 ERA and 164 strikeouts.)" link If George King doesn't lose his right to vote, then no one will.
posted by grum@work at 09:40 PM on November 19, 2007
dyams: Seriously, though, any writer who didn't vote for A-Rod after the kind of season he put together should lose their voting privileges for a few years. If they can't get past their "homerism," Yankee hate, or whatever, they shouldn't be allowed to impact the vote. What if all the writers acted that way?They do, sadly. I kind of wish they had some kind of kangaroo court to weed out the obviously incapable of making an honest vote writers, but membership is controlled by the BBWAA, so they self-police.... badly. And yeah, while A-Rod might have won the MVP anyway, having a vote that's unreliable because of corrupt and insane voters is not good; baseball rules forbid contracts based on specific performance criteria (such as those the 1919 White Sox labored under, where the owner could force a pitcher to be benched when the season was won, so that performance bonuses wouldn't kick in), but they are allowed bonuses for awards. Most marquee players often have sizeable bonuses for MVP/Cy Young awards; that one corrupt writer that swings the vote could reasonably cost a player several million dollars in bonus money. Ooooooh- I'd like to see a lawsuit based on that, just once. Just to see it play out, where a homer-ist BBWAA member is dragged into court on a civil suit. :) It's akin to the 1999 vote where a couple of writers- one from New York- refused to vote for Pedro Martinez, claiming it was on the principle he was a pitcher and he shouldn't win the MVP. Pedro missed out on the MVP by 13 points, so if those two writers had both simply placed Pedro in their top 5, he'd have actually won the MVP that year. And of course, George King, the writer from New York, put not one but two NYY pitchers on the ballot the previous year! So basically, the BBWAA voters are as stupid as the HOF Veteran's Committee voters. Actually, let's generalize: sportswriters are almost uniformly uninformed loudmouthed morons.
posted by hincandenza at 09:44 PM on November 19, 2007
Well fuck my cock and call me nancy. While I'm typing up a storm, ol' Grummy sneaks in with the same damn George King story. Although oddly- while the BBWAA membership is technically only released to members themselves- the Wiki article on the BBWAA no longer lists George King as a member. Maybe... maybe they did self-police?!
posted by hincandenza at 09:48 PM on November 19, 2007
sportswriters are almost uniformed loudmouthed moron I take issue with that statement. Please give examples where a generalization like this can be backed up. Sounds like your against the printed word or are broadcast sports personality also on your list.
posted by Janowitz at 10:17 PM on November 19, 2007
If you think THIS is "controversial", wait'll the NFL MVP is awarded. Brady for the stats or Favre for his impact on his team. Can't WAIT for that argument!!
posted by LeftyPower at 02:18 AM on November 20, 2007
Most marquee players often have sizeable bonuses for MVP/Cy Young awards; that one corrupt writer that swings the vote could reasonably cost a player several million dollars in bonus money. Which is why I love the hue and cry over Schilling's new contract: it says he gets a million dollars if he receives 1 Cy Young vote (even just for 3rd place). I've seen at least two columnists fired up that this could cause a corruption of the process. Three questions spring to mind: 1. Could it get worse? 2. Does Schilling really need the money so bad he would split it? 3. If he does, would he ever give a dollar to a writer?
posted by yerfatma at 06:36 AM on November 20, 2007
If you think THIS is "controversial", wait'll the NFL MVP is awarded. Brady for the stats or Favre for his impact on his team. Can't WAIT for that argument!! I know that the writers love Favre, but Brady is having an historical year. I'm not saying Brady will be the unanimous MVP, but I suspect it won't be close.
posted by holden at 09:11 AM on November 20, 2007
They should change MVP to Best Player, cause that's what it's really about and would lessen these yearly arguments.
posted by aerotive at 10:14 AM on November 20, 2007
I know that the writers love Favre, but Brady is having an historical year. I'm not saying Brady will be the unanimous MVP, but I suspect it won't be close. And what of a certain Mr. Moss for making Brady's gaudy statistics possible? Getting back to te original intent of the post, I cannot see why Rodriguez should not have been a unanimous choice. A case can easily be made for Odornez as the 2nd selection, but nobody save A-Rod deserved a 1st-place vote. The above from a dedicated BoSox fan. (Which of course makes it gospel.)
posted by Howard_T at 10:21 AM on November 20, 2007
I cannot see why Rodriguez should not have been a unanimous choice. A case can easily be made for Odornez as the 2nd selection, but nobody save A-Rod deserved a 1st-place vote. There's no sense in trying to make sense of what petulant writers with their own agendas, biases, petty grievances and irrational attachment to things that don't matter will do. No one in the history of the Hall of Fame has ever received 100% of the vote -- not Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, or Ted Williams, to name a few -- and I think HoF standards (at least for the best of the best) are maybe a less amorphous standard than who's most "valuable." Basically ask -- is this guy in the upper echelon of best players ever? Apparently 5% didn't think that with Babe Ruth, which is more inexcusable to me than a couple of Detroit-area writers thinking that because they saw Magglio's contributions with their own two eyes that they were picking up on something the rest of the media just didn't get.
posted by holden at 12:06 PM on November 20, 2007
grum: I knew King hadn't voted for Martinez; but I didn't realize he'd voted for pitchers in immediately previous years. Thanks for spreading the knowledge, even if it did make me throw up in my mouth a little.
posted by tieguy at 12:40 PM on November 20, 2007
Most Valuable Player - Somewhere in the title of the award, there's a hint that 'value' is important. The Yankees have got limited value from A-Rod, when you consider the obscene salary he receives. As for moral 'values', the less said, the better.
posted by Irish627 at 02:58 PM on November 20, 2007
Isn't that kind of a cheap interpretation of "value" in this context? Like an ROI? I'm pretty sure it can't work that way. In terms of a measurement against his peers A-Rod is killing. Magglio had a cool season that would be MVP worthy were it not for A-Rod. Tough break. Yet, somehow, life seems to grind on...
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:08 PM on November 20, 2007
Ok, A-rod had a great year, but if he wore the old english D and Mags is in pin stripes, Mags wins the MVP, with homers from NY voting for A-rod. Jimmy Rollins had an ok year and he won over Halliday, so explain that one? Let's not fool ourselves here, if the Tigers weren't hit with the injuries they had they win over 100 games, the world series...yada...yada...yada. Put an average player at third in A-rod's place and the they're still playoff contenders. My point is that we get caught up in home-run hitting when it's all the little things that Mags did that get overlooked (Hitting for average driving in a ton of runs, doubles galore, etc.) All a-rod has is home-runs and after that what did he really do? I wish the other writers would get their heads out of the yankee butt and look at what other teams and players are doing.
posted by sydroc at 04:13 PM on November 20, 2007
Let's not fool ourselves here, if the Tigers weren't hit with the injuries they had they win over 100 games, the world series...yada...yada...yada. Hard to disagree with such a well thought out argument. My point is that we get caught up in home-run hitting when it's all the little things that Mags did that get overlooked (Hitting for average driving in a ton of runs, doubles galore, etc.) Did you actually read the comments before yours? In almost every single statistic A-Rod was better than Ordonez, including RBIs which you included. Also, homers beat the hell out of doubles. If you have some angle why Ordonez had a better year other than "the little things" please enlighten me. with homers from NY voting for A-rod The two votes for Ordonez were from detroit. What was that about homers?
posted by justgary at 04:38 PM on November 20, 2007
Ok, A-rod had a great year, but if he wore the old english D and Mags is in pin stripes, Mags wins the MVP, with homers from NY voting for A-rod. Well, if ARod put up numbers like he did for Detroit, and Mags put up numbers like he did for NY, then ARod still wins the MVP because every 1st place vote outside of NY or Detroit would still have gone to ARod.
posted by grum@work at 09:26 PM on November 20, 2007
This Day-Rod must be elated. Well, what the heck, Say-Hey-Rod congratulations.
posted by longgreenline at 12:40 AM on November 21, 2007
Hard to disagree with such a well thought out argument. I think the standard response is, "And if you had two wheels instead of two legs, you'd be a bicycle." For some reason, that always cracks me up.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:22 AM on November 21, 2007
You all miss the point. What was it it that one the White Sox a world series. Little things, dip&*$%. Ok, its great to hit home runs, but again, take away the home runs and what do we really have? Mags had, by far, many more rbi's from hits other than home runs. I think we can say that both are very talented players, but Mags did good things in many more ways than just depend on blasting home runs.
posted by sydroc at 04:13 PM on November 21, 2007
Nuff said.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:32 PM on November 21, 2007
You all miss the point. What was it it that one the White Sox a world series. Little things, dip&*$%. Ok, its great to hit home runs, but again, take away the home runs and what do we really have? Mags had, by far, many more rbi's from hits other than home runs. I think we can say that both are very talented players, but Mags did good things in many more ways than just depend on blasting home runs. This is some form of parody, right? What does the White Sox winning the world series have to do with 2007? Also, what won them the World Series was good pitching and timely hitting, including, ahem, home runs. So home runs are great, but you want to take them away and then make a comparison? And that's how Magglio comes out ahead? And you only want to count RBI that don't come from HR? The HR is the best result you can have as a batter, but for your comparison you don't want to include it. That's like comparing pitchers if you don't include strikeouts. Or comparing second basemen without including double plays. It's a very silly argument, and you should probably reconsider posting that point of view if you want to avoid being mocked and humiliated in the future. If "little things" wins regular season MVP awards, then David Eckstein should have a closet full of them...
posted by grum@work at 06:42 PM on November 21, 2007
It's a very silly argument, and you should probably reconsider posting that point of view if you want to avoid being mocked and humiliated in the future. That about says it all, grum. I can't believe people are trying to compare another player this season with the gigantic numbers A-Rod put up all year long. And this all came about because a couple of Michigan sportswriters had to be dicks. If we're not to believe A-Rod is anything but a unanimous choice this past season, then I assume the MVP voting in many future seasons will be a toss up between 20-25 players.
posted by dyams at 07:45 PM on November 21, 2007
I had a post ready that basically echoed grums point by point, so I'll just go with what he said. Here's one of the two voters that voted for ordonez. Basically he voted for ordonez because of average (over-rated) and average with runners in scoring position. The Tigers were able to depend on Ordonez with runners in scoring position far more than the Yankees were able to depend on A-Rod. Yes, Rodriguez had all those home runs, the glamour stat. Plus he had 17 more RBIs than Ordonez, but only 17.
posted by justgary at 01:40 AM on November 22, 2007
If some seek comparisons between A-Rod and Ordonez, another plus for A-Rod was his solid season he put together playing third base. After enduring a season in which he struggled, his defense was, overall, excellent. As I said in the comparison between Rollins and Holliday, I'll always give the edge to an excellent shortstop versus a right fielder. I feel the same with A-Rod. Third base is much more demanding a position. But, as usual, the vast majority only want to compare offensive numbers when baseball is a defensive sport, too.
posted by dyams at 07:10 AM on November 22, 2007
Put an average player at third in A-rod's place and the they're still playoff contenders. That's just ridiculous. Arod pretty much single-handedly carried the team on his back (bat?) during a couple months when the rest of the team was doing nothing offensively.
posted by MKUltra at 10:46 AM on November 25, 2007
Basically he voted for ordonez because of average (over-rated) and average with runners in scoring position. RISP: ARod - .333 AVG, 1.138 OPS Magglio - .429 AVG, 1.137 OPS RISP, 2-out: ARod - .318 AVG, 1.224 OPS Magglio - .307 AVG, .879 OPS Late & Close (PA in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.) ARod - .357 AVG, 1.125 OPS Magglio - .247 AVG, .720 OPS So Magglio was a bit better (average-wise) in the clutch, but ARod was miles ahead in SUPER clutch and MONSTER clutch times. But I guess if a writer wants to defend his terrible decision by cherry-picking stats, that's his prerogative. He just has to understand that he is going to get mocked for it.
posted by grum@work at 01:36 PM on November 25, 2007
Well...uuuhhh...Maglio hit more doubles...