PDA

View Full Version : Isn't Jay Bruce the NL MVP at this point?



Phhhl
06-04-2011, 02:46 AM
Not to put pressure on him, but the simple move Dusty made to bat him behind Joey might become legend. It has been a factor in every game since. This team has looked different from precisely the moment that decision was made.

Just sayin'.

kaldaniels
06-04-2011, 09:44 AM
Your thread title brings up an interesting question. Who is the NL MVP at this point?

Votto's OBP/OPS makes him my choice today, despite not having as "glamourous" a season as Bruce. The guy gets on base like a champ.

Hard to believe there is a legitimate question as to which of 2 players on the Reds should be MVP. (Granted a couple guys from other teams are in the running as well)

GoReds
06-04-2011, 09:56 AM
Here's a fairly reasoned assessment of the NL MVP race to date - it's still Votto.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/02/first-third-awards-2011-nl-mvp/

Not sure where I read it, but there was a comment made that Bruce's recent hot streak has not necessarily correlated to Reds wins. In all fairness, that's hardly Jay's fault. If he consistently demonstrates his May abilities, the MVP will be a shoe-in.

HokieRed
06-04-2011, 10:34 AM
Here's a fairly reasoned assessment of the NL MVP race to date - it's still Votto.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/02/first-third-awards-2011-nl-mvp/

Not sure where I read it, but there was a comment made that Bruce's recent hot streak has not necessarily correlated to Reds wins. In all fairness, that's hardly Jay's fault. If he consistently demonstrates his May abilities, the MVP will be a shoe-in.

Article makes a really good point about Votto's RBI's. He'd probably have 60 with some better OBP ahead of him and protection in the 4 spot.

VR
06-04-2011, 10:42 AM
Interesting to see this link below the MVP discussion. Didn't realize he'd been scuffling so bad.


http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/04/adam-dunn-finally-got-a-hit-against-a-southpaw-last-night/

Brutus
06-04-2011, 11:09 AM
Article makes a really good point about Votto's RBI's. He'd probably have 60 with some better OBP ahead of him and protection in the 4 spot.

I'm not sure that's the case right now just because even with someone good behind him, teams would still rather pitch to the someone good than him. We've already seen Votto walk several times in the games that Bruce has been hitting fourth. Teams aren't exactly going after Bruce either, but they're still avoiding Votto quite a bit.

You're absolutely correct, though, that his RBI total would probably be higher than it is now. I just wonder if it would be too much greater. They really don't want much to do with him (understandably).

fugowitribe
06-04-2011, 11:35 AM
IMO the MVP is not a Cincinnati Red at this point. I believe we have two Albert Pujols' from a year ago on our team. The only reason I say this is because the MVP usually comes from a winner. Right now we are in 3rd place. The way I see it, if these two are so valuable, the team should be in 1st place. Right now they are just two sets of good stats. The MVP is supposed to be the guy that his team could not win without and with the lack of wins, it looks like their efforts are not enough. The day this team takes over the division lead and these guys are still leading the way, is when we need to start arguing about how they will take votes away from each other and a third party will win by default.

RedsManRick
06-04-2011, 12:12 PM
20 years ago I'd say he's the clear favorite. But if the voting took place today, I'd put my money on Braun or Berkman, probably Berkman. The voters will want to reward the story of him going back to the outfield and getting his offensive game back for a division leading squad.

wolfboy
06-04-2011, 12:29 PM
The way I see it, if these two are so valuable, the team should be in 1st place.

What more could they do? Pitch? :confused:

MikeThierry
06-04-2011, 12:36 PM
I think the winner of the MVP this year will be on the team that manages to win the central. Logical arguments could be made for Votto, Berkman, Holliday, or Braun.

Cedric
06-04-2011, 12:39 PM
I think the winner of the MVP this year will be on the team that manages to win the central. Logical arguments could be made for Votto, Berkman, Holliday, or Braun.

Berkman? That would be a joke. Though right now he is hot.

Holliday or Votto would make much more sense.

kaldaniels
06-04-2011, 12:45 PM
I think the winner of the MVP this year will be on the team that manages to win the central. Logical arguments could be made for Votto, Berkman, Holliday, or Braun.

No Bruce?

MikeThierry
06-04-2011, 12:56 PM
Berkman? That would be a joke. Though right now he is hot.

Holliday or Votto would make much more sense.

I don't know why Berkman would be a joke. He has been a huge reason why the Cards are in 1st place.

Kal, this might sound crazy, but Bruce needs to raise that average a bit before I consider him an MVP candidate. Right now, it seems that he is doing the best impression of Ryan Howard in 2006. Howard won the MVP in 2006 but many feel, including me, that he was a product more of the lineup he was in. There was no way he should have won the MVP over Pujols that year. Right now, if Bruce were to receive the MVP over Votto, it would truely be a shame.

I also believe that at the end of the year, Pujols is still going to be a factor in this discussion. The way he has been swinging the bat lately, by the end of the year he could be up to his traditional numbers.

dougdirt
06-04-2011, 01:14 PM
I don't know why Berkman would be a joke. He has been a huge reason why the Cards are in 1st place.

Kal, this might sound crazy, but Bruce needs to raise that average a bit before I consider him an MVP candidate. Right now, it seems that he is doing the best impression of Ryan Howard in 2006. Howard won the MVP in 2006 but many feel, including me, that he was a product more of the lineup he was in. There was no way he should have won the MVP over Pujols that year. Right now, if Bruce were to receive the MVP over Votto, it would truely be a shame.

I also believe that at the end of the year, Pujols is still going to be a factor in this discussion. The way he has been swinging the bat lately, by the end of the year he could be up to his traditional numbers.

Bruce isn't a product of his line up. He isn't the MVP right now, but his numbers aren't from the line up at all.

Matt700wlw
06-04-2011, 01:57 PM
Votto or Bruce...MVP.

This is not a bad thing :)

Brutus
06-04-2011, 02:13 PM
I don't know why Berkman would be a joke. He has been a huge reason why the Cards are in 1st place.

Kal, this might sound crazy, but Bruce needs to raise that average a bit before I consider him an MVP candidate. Right now, it seems that he is doing the best impression of Ryan Howard in 2006. Howard won the MVP in 2006 but many feel, including me, that he was a product more of the lineup he was in. There was no way he should have won the MVP over Pujols that year. Right now, if Bruce were to receive the MVP over Votto, it would truely be a shame.

I also believe that at the end of the year, Pujols is still going to be a factor in this discussion. The way he has been swinging the bat lately, by the end of the year he could be up to his traditional numbers.

Given where Bruce has been hitting most of the year, it's hard to say he's been a product of the lineup. After all, one could make a case the Reds' best four hitters (Bruce excluded) have been hitting in front of him until the last week or two.

That said, while I don't directly agree on the average needing to improve much than it is now (as he's hitting just a hair below .300), I will agree from the standpoint that no player in either league in the last 20 years has won the MVP with a lower batting average than Bruce's .294.

So unless Bruce continues his torrid power output, it's not likely he'd win the MVP.

GAC
06-04-2011, 02:53 PM
Over 100 games (2/3rd of the season) left. Way too early to be discussing NL MVP yet.

RedsManRick
06-04-2011, 03:50 PM
Bruce isn't a product of his line up. He isn't the MVP right now, but his numbers aren't from the line up at all.

Depends on how you look at it. There's little doubt that his RBI figures are in part due to having Joey Votto on base ahead of him so frequently. Bruce is 9th in MLB in the number of runners on base when he's come to bat.

JaxRed
06-04-2011, 03:53 PM
Actually Berkman is NOT hot. Berkman WAS hot. He's still looking good based on an incredible April. His April OPS was 1.218 May .878 Last 10 Days .651

All hit stats are heading south.

MikeThierry
06-04-2011, 03:54 PM
Given where Bruce has been hitting most of the year, it's hard to say he's been a product of the lineup. After all, one could make a case the Reds' best four hitters (Bruce excluded) have been hitting in front of him until the last week or two.

That said, while I don't directly agree on the average needing to improve much than it is now (as he's hitting just a hair below .300), I will agree from the standpoint that no player in either league in the last 20 years has won the MVP with a lower batting average than Bruce's .294.

So unless Bruce continues his torrid power output, it's not likely he'd win the MVP.

Brutus, what I mean by that he is a product of his lineup is what RedsManRick has alluded to. He is going to have a lot of RBI's if there are guys consistently on base in front of him. I may have not said what I meant correctly at first. His RBI's are a product of the lineup, not what Bruce is doing himself. Again, this is what I call the Ryan Howard effect.

RedsManRick
06-04-2011, 03:56 PM
Brutus, what I mean by that he is a product of his lineup is what RedsManRick has alluded to. He is going to have a lot of RBI's if there are guys consistently on base in front of him. I may have not said what I meant correctly at first. His RBI's are a product of the lineup, not what Bruce is doing himself. Again, this is what I call the Ryan Howard effect.

To be fair, he's been solid at converting on those opportunities -- but certainly not special. (50th in MLB in RBI conversion %)

MikeThierry
06-04-2011, 03:58 PM
Actually Berkman is NOT hot. Berkman WAS hot. He's still looking good based on an incredible April. His April OPS was 1.218 May .878 Last 10 Days .651

All hit stats are heading south.

He still had an amazing OBP in the month of May. I would argue that his production started to decline once David Freese gone on the DL and stopped protecting him. Still, Berkman's production was the reason why the Cardinals obtained 1st place and still remain there. I don't want to put words in your mouth but if you are going to argue that Berkman doesn't deserve MVP due to his slowing down, I could make an counter argument that Bruce doesn't deserve MVP because of how bad he was in the first month of the season.

JaxRed
06-04-2011, 04:07 PM
What I'm saying is I think he's reverting back to the Berkman we know, and that at the end of the year, he probably won't be in it.

RedsManRick
06-04-2011, 04:21 PM
What I'm saying is I think he's reverting back to the Berkman we know, and that at the end of the year, he probably won't be in it.

I don't know that anybody would disagree with you. But the point of the thread is "at this point". MVP awards aren't given based on what a guy is likely to do in the future.

MikeThierry
06-04-2011, 08:16 PM
What I'm saying is I think he's reverting back to the Berkman we know, and that at the end of the year, he probably won't be in it.

At the same time, at the end of the year, Holliday and probably Pujols will be in play for the award. There are some signs that Pujols is getting out of his struggles and it wouldn't surprise me to see his numbers to his usual standards by the end of the year.

kaldaniels
06-04-2011, 10:16 PM
At the same time, at the end of the year, Holliday and probably Pujols will be in play for the award. There are some signs that Pujols is getting out of his struggles and it wouldn't surprise me to see his numbers to his usual standards by the end of the year.

I think at this point it has to be acknowledged that barring a Herculean effort, this is going to wind up a sub-par year for Albert. He's dug too big a hole to climb out of.

2 Months in, he has a 1.2 WAR.

Last season, an "below" average season for him, he had a 7.5 WAR.

So to produce this year as much as last season, he needs 6.3 WAR over the seasons final 2/3.

So unless he becomes 2003 Albert from here on, (8 long years ago folks), this is gonna be his least production season since 2002 or before. Couple that with the fact that last season he had a WAR 0.7 points lower than any season since 2002, and I think I know how this story ends.

I hope the Cardinals re-sign him for 150-200 MM, I really do.

MikeThierry
06-04-2011, 11:07 PM
I think at this point it has to be acknowledged that barring a Herculean effort, this is going to wind up a sub-par year for Albert. He's dug too big a hole to climb out of.

2 Months in, he has a 1.2 WAR.

Last season, an "below" average season for him, he had a 7.5 WAR.

So to produce this year as much as last season, he needs 6.3 WAR over the seasons final 2/3.

So unless he becomes 2003 Albert from here on, (8 long years ago folks), this is gonna be his least production season since 2002 or before. Couple that with the fact that last season he had a WAR 0.7 points lower than any season since 2002, and I think I know how this story ends.

I hope the Cardinals re-sign him for 150-200 MM, I really do.

I have seen him produce off the charts for so many years that I'm not counting him out of anything. It wouldn't surprise me that by the All Star break, he is hitting over .300 and within striking distance of the HR/RBI leaders. Heck, he raised his batting average from something like .265 to .275 in just one day today. His stance looks back to normal and is really hitting the ball well. Also, lucky for him most sports writers don't vote based on the over-used stat of WAR.

Superdude
06-04-2011, 11:20 PM
I have seen him produce off the charts for so many years that I'm not counting him out of anything. It wouldn't surprise me that by the All Star break, he is hitting over .300 and within striking distance of the HR/RBI leaders. Heck, he raised his batting average from something like .265 to .275 in just one day today. His stance looks back to normal and is really hitting the ball well. Also, lucky for him most sports writers don't vote based on the over-used stat of WAR.

Pujols is 30th in the league in OPS after more than 1/3 of the season though. Even if he reverts back to being an MVP player from here on out, I think his first two months are going to weigh him down too much statistically to be a serious candidate.

kaldaniels
06-04-2011, 11:20 PM
Albert hit .288 in May.

Aside from his awful start it looks to me as if he is ebbing and flowing as any MLB player does. I'm just saying in terms of production, it is going to be very difficult, even for Albert to turn this season into a "normal" one.

You love the Cards Mike I know, but I can't help but speak up when it appears you are looking thru those Cardinal-red colored glasses you are wearing. :D

MikeThierry
06-04-2011, 11:22 PM
All I'm saying is that by the end of the year, Albert is going to be in the conversation. I have a feeling Holliday will get the nod though if the Cards end up taking the central.

kaldaniels
06-04-2011, 11:25 PM
All I'm saying is that by the end of the year, Albert is going to be in the conversation. I have a feeling Holliday will get the nod though if the Cards end up taking the central.

That would be a fair point, but you have excluded Bruce from said conversation. If you let him in, that would make your opinion much more understandable.

MikeThierry
06-04-2011, 11:31 PM
That would be a fair point, but you have excluded Bruce from said conversation. If you let him in, that would make your opinion much more understandable.

I will remain constant and continue to say that if Bruce does not raise his batting average above .300, I can't put him in the conversation. As Brutus stated, there hasn't been an MVP in the past 20 years who hasn't had a batting average above at or below .294. If he can get to that level and maintain it, then I'll put him in the conversation. Until then Votto, Berkman, Holliday, and Braun deserve it more than he does.

MikeThierry
06-04-2011, 11:34 PM
Matt Kemp also has a strong case for MVP as well.

kaldaniels
06-04-2011, 11:47 PM
I will remain constant and continue to say that if Bruce does not raise his batting average above .300, I can't put him in the conversation. As Brutus stated, there hasn't been an MVP in the past 20 years who hasn't had a batting average above at or below .294. If he can get to that level and maintain it, then I'll put him in the conversation. Until then Votto, Berkman, Holliday, and Braun deserve it more than he does.

Agree on all 4 counts there. But you slip Pujols into the 2011 MVP race yet exclude Bruce. That's where I'm struggling. Bruce is teetering on the brink and you seem hesitant to acknowledge that.

MikeThierry
06-04-2011, 11:55 PM
Agree on all 4 counts there. But you slip Pujols into the 2011 MVP race yet exclude Bruce. That's where I'm struggling. Bruce is teetering on the brink and you seem hesitant to acknowledge that.

Pujols has a track record that nobody in the history of baseball has had. He has never failed to hit below .300, never failed to reach 30 hr, and never failed to reach over 100 RBI's. In fact, there has only been one year in his career where he hasn't finished in the top 5 in MVP voting. Just one! Until he has proven otherwise, I can't ignore what he has done. Bruce does not have a track record of excellence in fact his track record is that of a streaky hitter. Now he might have a breakout season. I'll acknowledge that when the season is over. I just cannot count out Pujols in any capacity.

Phhhl
06-05-2011, 02:24 AM
Pujols has a track record that nobody in the history of baseball has had. He has never failed to hit below .300, never failed to reach 30 hr, and never failed to reach over 100 RBI's. In fact, there has only been one year in his career where he hasn't finished in the top 5 in MVP voting. Just one! Until he has proven otherwise, I can't ignore what he has done. Bruce does not have a track record of excellence in fact his track record is that of a streaky hitter. Now he might have a breakout season. I'll acknowledge that when the season is over. I just cannot count out Pujols in any capacity.

All of this combined with Tony LaRussa's record as the manager most associated with every odd (or even) player found directly cheating chemically in this game leaves everyone outside of St. Louis, Oakland and Chicago with unfortunate questions about the legitimacy of the titanic accomplishments of "any" player under his jurisdiction throughout the steroid era, including Pujols. As a baseball fan, I cannot describe how envious I am of Albert Pujols as a player. But, that baseball has allowed his manager to sit in the middle of a smoldering fire of corruption for his entire career without even bringing him downtown for questioning as a possible arsonist will have historic consequences.

Some day.

MikeThierry
06-05-2011, 03:20 AM
All of this combined with Tony LaRussa's record as the manager most associated with every odd (or even) player found directly cheating chemically in this game leaves everyone outside of St. Louis, Oakland and Chicago with unfortunate questions about the legitimacy of the titanic accomplishments of "any" player under his jurisdiction throughout the steroid era, including Pujols. As a baseball fan, I cannot describe how envious I am of Albert Pujols as a player. But, that baseball has allowed his manager to sit in the middle of a smoldering fire of corruption for his entire career without even bringing him downtown for questioning as a possible arsonist will have historic consequences.

Some day.


Yeah, because we all know Dusty Baker's hands are clean with players using PED's...oh wait Bonds was the biggest user of them all. Never mind.

I think it is a bit silly to flame TLR for players using PED's under him when managers all throughout baseball had clubhouses rampant with PED use. To also implement Pujols or take away from what Pujols has done out of pure speculation is just idiotic. Using the same logic, Joey Votto and Jay Bruce could easily be under the influence of Dusty Baker and his magic juice. I just want to know when will the Spanish Inquisition end? Will you be satisfied until every player in baseball has been burned at the stake?

757690
06-05-2011, 04:46 AM
Yeah, because we all know Dusty Baker's hands are clean with players using PED's...oh wait Bonds was the biggest user of them all. Never mind.

I think it is a bit silly to flame TLR for players using PED's under him when managers all throughout baseball had clubhouses rampant with PED use. To also implement Pujols or take away from what Pujols has done out of pure speculation is just idiotic. Using the same logic, Joey Votto and Jay Bruce could easily be under the influence of Dusty Baker and his magic juice. I just want to know when will the Spanish Inquisition end? Will you be satisfied until every player in baseball has been burned at the stake?

Every manager from the last 20 years managed PED users. What makes LaRussa stand out is that his A's had two of the most infamous users, and according to one of them, LaRussa knew about it.

It doesn't make LaRussa guilty of anything, but it does separate him from every other manager from that period. He'll never be able to escape that reputation.

That said, that doesn't have much to do with Pujols. In fact, I think Pujol's decline this year, which really started last year, suggests that he's clean. His body is acting like it naturally should.

757690
06-05-2011, 04:55 AM
.

That said, while I don't directly agree on the average needing to improve much than it is now (as he's hitting just a hair below .300), I will agree from the standpoint that no player in either league in the last 20 years has won the MVP with a lower batting average than Bruce's .294.

So unless Bruce continues his torrid power output, it's not likely he'd win the MVP.

That's because during the last 20 years, the game was ruled by PED users, and all the stats were inflated.

The game now is very similar to the game back in the 70's and 80's, and plenty of guys won the MBP back then with BA's in the .280's.

Plus, there are a bunch of writers these days that vote that under Sabermetrics. I don't think there is a need for a player to hit .300 in order to win the MVP anymore.

757690
06-05-2011, 04:58 AM
Pujols has a track record that nobody in the history of baseball has had. He has never failed to hit below .300, never failed to reach 30 hr, and never failed to reach over 100 RBI's. In fact, there has only been one year in his career where he hasn't finished in the top 5 in MVP voting. Just one! Until he has proven otherwise, I can't ignore what he has done. Bruce does not have a track record of excellence in fact his track record is that of a streaky hitter. Now he might have a breakout season. I'll acknowledge that when the season is over. I just cannot count out Pujols in any capacity.

I was saying the exact same thing when Ken Griffey jr. was Pujol's age.

MikeThierry
06-05-2011, 05:09 AM
I was saying the exact same thing when Ken Griffey jr. was Pujol's age.

Albert Pujols does not have nearly the horrible injury history that Griffey had. In fact, Pujols has never had long stints on the DL like Griffey did. Pujols position doesn't demand as much on the body as Griiffey's did. I don't see the connection between the two. I also don't think it is accurate to use one players past/history, compare it with another player, and correlate that the same player will have the same sort of decline as the previous player. That isn't how baseball or human anatomy works.


Every manager from the last 20 years managed PED users. What makes LaRussa stand out is that his A's had two of the most infamous users, and according to one of them, LaRussa knew about it.

It is a bit naive to think that LaRussa was the only one that knew about PED use from their players. I have a feeling the majority of managers knew that some of their players were taking PED's. As of this point, LaRussa knowing about PED is the word from one guy. Is it likely that he knew? Probably, however nothing is official so anything is just "speculation".


Getting back to the original topic because the discussion has kind of taken a different turn, you are right that players in the 70's won MVP's with batting averages less than .300. However, in today's baseball, there are still plenty of .300 hitters that Bruce will have to contend with. I might have a different opinion if there were maybe one or two guys hitting over .300 but I just don't see that happening when there are a good number of players hitting .300. In 10 years that might change but as of right now I think there should be some sort of standard set in place.

You are also right about about baseball writers using WAR as a measuring stick. However there are still a ton of baseball writers who take into account intangibles. If your theory about writers using WAR as their ultimate guide (which is a flawed way of voting in my opinion but that is another discussion), Pujols should have won the MVP last year. According to Fangraphs, Albert Pujols led all players in WAR last year with a 7.5 WAR. Joey Votto did have a 7.3 WAR. While a .2 difference is small, technically Pujols was a better player last year, according to WAR (again, I feel its a somewhat flawed stat to begin with). Yet, many baseball writers used common sense and voted Votto in. His team won the division and he was the biggest reason why they did. Point is that baseball writers will still look at that stuff and not just look at the advanced stats as a judge to who is most valuable.

757690
06-05-2011, 05:14 AM
Jr.'s numbers dropped considerably in 2000, when he was perfectly healthy. Nearly every great player sees his numbers decline after 30, especially power hitters. They still are great, just not as great as when they were in their 20's. There's nothing wrong with it, it's part of life. :)

MikeThierry
06-05-2011, 05:27 AM
Jr.'s numbers dropped considerably in 2000, when he was perfectly healthy. Nearly every great player sees his numbers decline after 30, especially power hitters. They still are great, just not as great as when they were in their 20's. There's nothing wrong with it, it's part of life. :)

Do you think Pujols is a power hitter? He seems more of a guy that is a line drive hitter that happens to hit home runs. Most of the home runs in his career are of the line drive type.

757690
06-05-2011, 05:38 AM
Do you think Pujols is a power hitter? He seems more of a guy that is a line drive hitter that happens to hit home runs. Most of the home runs in his career are of the line drive type.

Guys who hit lots of home runs are power hitters. I was just saying singles hitters, like Boggs, Rose and Gwynn, tend to decline at a slower rate. Pujols is not like those guys.

And, for the record, the last few years, there have been around 15 guys in the league per season who hit above .300. In the 1990's and 2000's, it was around 30. In the 70's and 80's, it was around 15.

Anyway, the MVP usually goes to players having the best season on a playoff team. Not much else is constant. So if Berkman keeps this up, and the Cards win, he'll be a favorite. if Bruce keeps it up and the Reds win, he'll be a favorite.

paintmered
06-05-2011, 09:08 AM
nm

kaldaniels
06-05-2011, 10:59 AM
Holy missed the point, Batman.

Pujols is entering the age where Griffey started to have his injury troubles. Clearly you forgot, but Griffey enjoyed an injury-free career, save for him breaking his wrist from running into the outfield wall. The point is, Griffey didn't have body-breakdown injuries until after he joined the Reds. Pujols won't be able to sustain his 2003-2010 level of production when he gets there too, if he isn't there already. In the post-PED era, no player will be able to sustain peak value numbers well into their 30s, even if they've enjoyed a healthy career thus far.

Not even Albert, the most super-duper player ever?

I think what I am "arguing" here is that we have 2 players, Bruce and Pujols, who seem to be on opposite career trajectories right now. And that's not a bad thing for Albert, it's just that he is getting up there in years and Jay is relatively new to the league.

To state as fact that Albert will be in the MVP discussion at season's end 2011, and to dimiss Bruce (your reigning player of the month, and last I checked HR and RBI leader) comes across the wrong way to me.

A side note right now...Reds players now lead in all 3 triple crown categories. :beerme:

(Gotta stay on the field if you want to win a batting title and/or MVP Mr. Holliday)

kaldaniels
06-05-2011, 11:00 AM
nm

It was a good post.

Brutus
06-05-2011, 11:20 AM
That's because during the last 20 years, the game was ruled by PED users, and all the stats were inflated.

The game now is very similar to the game back in the 70's and 80's, and plenty of guys won the MBP back then with BA's in the .280's.

Plus, there are a bunch of writers these days that vote that under Sabermetrics. I don't think there is a need for a player to hit .300 in order to win the MVP anymore.

That would be an easy dismissal to make, and quite natural to do so, but I'm not sure it carries much clout. The rules against PEDs have been in place for 3-4 years. You notice what the BA of the MVPs have been in the last three seasons?

.359
.324
.365
.327
.357
.326

Not exactly showing a reversal of fortune as far as post-PED batting averages are concerned.On the league level, it's true batting averages are declining the last 3 years back to pre-PED levels. But it should be noted that the game has always gone in cycles and there have been some decades in the past where the league-wide batting averages were actually higher than they were during the height of the PED era.

Still, individually, the MVP usually goes to guys who have both power and a high average. In the 1980's, guys were routinely winning with BA hovering from .290 to .310, but there weren't a lot of guys north of those averages making the selections easier. In the 1970's, however, only 3 of 19 hitters to win the MVP award in either league were not at least at .300 or above.

So in summation, I think my point still stands: Jay Bruce is not likely to win an MVP unless he gets his average over .300 and sustains it. Especially if other appealing candidates are hitting .330 or .340.

kaldaniels
06-05-2011, 11:27 AM
So in summation, I think my point still stands: Jay Bruce is not likely to win an MVP unless he gets his average over .300 and sustains it. Especially if other appealing candidates are hitting .330 or .340.

Thats the key. .294 is not some magic number that disqualifies Bruce. It's just that he's gonna have to do a tick (or more than a tick) better to actually win the award, not just place in the top 5. If he hits .294, there is probably a player who will have a better season than him.

757690
06-05-2011, 12:06 PM
That would be an easy dismissal to make, and quite natural to do so, but I'm not sure it carries much clout. The rules against PEDs have been in place for 3-4 years. You notice what the BA of the MVPs have been in the last three seasons?

.359
.324
.365
.327
.357
.326

Not exactly showing a reversal of fortune as far as post-PED batting averages are concerned.On the league level, it's true batting averages are declining the last 3 years back to pre-PED levels. But it should be noted that the game has always gone in cycles and there have been some decades in the past where the league-wide batting averages were actually higher than they were during the height of the PED era.

Still, individually, the MVP usually goes to guys who have both power and a high average. In the 1980's, guys were routinely winning with BA hovering from .290 to .310, but there weren't a lot of guys north of those averages making the selections easier. In the 1970's, however, only 3 of 19 hitters to win the MVP award in either league were not at least at .300 or above.

So in summation, I think my point still stands: Jay Bruce is not likely to win an MVP unless he gets his average over .300 and sustains it. Especially if other appealing candidates are hitting .330 or .340.

I just don't think that a .300 batting average is a requirement to win the MVP.

Let's say it comes down between say Berkman, Votto and Bruce, with Berkman and Votto with BA's around .330 and around 30 HR's, and Bruce with BA around .290 and 45 HR's. Bruce won't be eliminated from discussion because he didn't hit .300.

Like I said before, the only constant is that the MVP goes to the best player on a playoff bound team, whatever his numbers are.

westofyou
06-05-2011, 12:09 PM
I just don't think that a .300 batting average is a requirement to win the MVP.

Let's say it comes down between say Berkman, Votto and Bruce, with Berkman and Votto with BA's around .330 and around 30 HR's, and Bruce with BA around .290 and 45 HR's. Bruce won't be eliminated from discussion because he didn't hit .300.

Like I said before, the only constant is that the MVP goes to the best player on a playoff bound team, whatever his numbers are.

Agreed, Killebrew and Schmidt won the MVP with prodigious power and RBI numbers and didn't hit above .300.

If the voting block is so smart about advanced pitching metrics these days are we really supposed to believe that they still cling solely to BA as the deciding factor in the MVP race.

I'd hope not.

MikeThierry
06-05-2011, 12:21 PM
I just don't think that a .300 batting average is a requirement to win the MVP.

Let's say it comes down between say Berkman, Votto and Bruce, with Berkman and Votto with BA's around .330 and around 30 HR's, and Bruce with BA around .290 and 45 HR's. Bruce won't be eliminated from discussion because he didn't hit .300.

Like I said before, the only constant is that the MVP goes to the best player on a playoff bound team, whatever his numbers are.

I'm sorry, I just cannot agree. I think it would be a damn shame if a player who hit .330 and 30 were beat out by a player who hit .290 and 45. I would even argue that the player who hit .290 should be eliminated from the discussion if there are superior players with a lot higher BA, OBP, OPS, OPS+ etc. Maybe I feel this way because I have seen Pujols be screwed over in the MVP voting at least twice on this very issue we are talking about and it still angers me to this day. This is one area where we can agree to disagree and nobody will change my mind on it.

pahster
06-05-2011, 12:24 PM
I'm sorry, I just cannot agree. I think it would be a damn shame if a player who hit .330 and 30 were beat out by a player who hit .290 and 45. I would even argue that the player who hit .290 should be eliminated from the discussion. Maybe I feel this way because I have seen Pujols be screwed over in the MVP voting at least twice on this very issue we are talking about and it still angers me to this day. This is one area where we can agree to disagree and nobody will change my mind on it.

What if their stat lines looked like this?

A: .330/.390/.525 30 HR
B: .290/.400/.590 45 HR

There's a lot more to offensive performance than batting average.

Screwball
06-05-2011, 12:38 PM
What if their stat lines looked like this?

A: .330/.390/.525 30 HR
B: .290/.400/.590 45 HR


Depends on which slash line is Albert Pujols'.

;)

MikeThierry
06-05-2011, 12:40 PM
What if their stat lines looked like this?

A: .330/.390/.525 30 HR
B: .290/.400/.590 45 HR

There's a lot more to offensive performance than batting average.

In that hypothetical, you might have an argument. However, hypotheticals do not add up to real life in this case. A player that hits .330 will generally have a higher OBP and higher slug due to more doubles being produced. Let me give you a real world example of what I'm talking about.

2006 MVP:

1. Ryan Howard: .313 .425 .659 1.084
2. Albert Pujols: .331 .431 .671 1.102

It should be noted that Howards team didn't even make the playoffs while the Cards went to the WS.

2007 may have been the year where all sports writers should have their credentials taken away. There is no way that Rollins should have won the MVP that year.

1. Jimmy Rollins: .296 .344 .531 .875
2. Matt Holliday: .340 .405 .607 1.012

MikeThierry
06-05-2011, 12:44 PM
Depends on which slash line is Albert Pujols'.

;)

That is kind of unfair. The imbalance in the MVP voting has been an issue of mine for years and its one of those issues I get fired up about. Its not just Albert Pujols. Take last year. Votto clearly deserved the MVP even though Pujols had a better WAR, more RBI's, and more HR's.

westofyou
06-05-2011, 12:51 PM
HOMERUNS HR AVG OBA SLG RC/G
Harmon Killebrew 49 .276 .427 .584 4.80
Boog Powell 37 .304 .383 .559 3.08
Frank Robinson 32 .308 .415 .540 4.20


Damn shame, 42 years ago

Screwball
06-05-2011, 12:52 PM
That is kind of unfair. The imbalance in the MVP voting has been an issue of mine for years and its one of those issues I get fired up about. Its not just Albert Pujols. Take last year. Votto clearly deserved the MVP even though Pujols had a better WAR, more RBI's, and more HR's.

Just messin' with ya boss. If FJM.com has taught us nothing else, it's that there are a whole host of archaic, borderline moronic baseball writers out there. It necessarily follows that the awards they vote on are all too often confusing or worse yet, just flat out wrong. Your above examples clearly illustrate as much.

Blitz Dorsey
06-05-2011, 12:59 PM
I'll tell you one thing: Bruce's contract is looking like one hell of a bargain for the Reds right about now.

kaldaniels
06-05-2011, 01:13 PM
I'm curious what 2 seasons Albert got screwed out of the MVP. Cause a in couple of the ones I think are being referred to Albert didn't lead the league in WAR.

What I'm saying is I don't know that it was a slam dunk case for Albert. So to "be angry" about it and say he was "screwed" may be a bit much.

kaldaniels
06-05-2011, 01:16 PM
I'll tell you one thing: Bruce's contract is looking like one hell of a bargain for the Reds right about now.

A lot of griping going on about acquistions and transactions in the offseason right now in other threads. This move is not-suprisingly being overlooked.

757690
06-05-2011, 01:26 PM
In that hypothetical, you might have an argument. However, hypotheticals do not add up to real life in this case. A player that hits .330 will generally have a higher OBP and higher slug due to more doubles being produced. Let me give you a real world example of what I'm talking about.

2006 MVP:

1. Ryan Howard: .313 .425 .659 1.084
2. Albert Pujols: .331 .431 .671 1.102

It should be noted that Howards team didn't even make the playoffs while the Cards went to the WS.

2007 may have been the year where all sports writers should have their credentials taken away. There is no way that Rollins should have won the MVP that year.

1. Jimmy Rollins: .296 .344 .531 .875
2. Matt Holliday: .340 .405 .607 1.012

Rollins was the easy choice in 2007. An above average defensive SS with a .531 SLG is about as valuable as a player can be.

But a lot of people, including me, think Pujols should have won in 2006. I guess chicks aren't the only ones that dig the long ball. ;)

Brutus
06-05-2011, 01:37 PM
I just don't think that a .300 batting average is a requirement to win the MVP.

Let's say it comes down between say Berkman, Votto and Bruce, with Berkman and Votto with BA's around .330 and around 30 HR's, and Bruce with BA around .290 and 45 HR's. Bruce won't be eliminated from discussion because he didn't hit .300.

Like I said before, the only constant is that the MVP goes to the best player on a playoff bound team, whatever his numbers are.

It might not be a prerequisite necessarily, but 80 of the last 100 batters to win the award dating back to 1958 have had a batting average of .300 or better. Wouldn't you agree that 80% large enough to give merit to the threshold?

As Kal pointed out, your scenario wouldn't mean he's eliminated from the discussion, but it sure does mean he's unlikely to actually win the award.

mth123
06-05-2011, 04:03 PM
A lot of griping going on about acquistions and transactions in the offseason right now in other threads. This move is not-suprisingly being overlooked.

Who is overlooking it? The move to sign Bruce gets an A+. But it was the only of those signings in that category IMO. The other threads are talking about adding talent to what is already here in an attempt to put the team over the top. Bruce was already on the team and is locked up for several more years without the signing. It was a great move but its not really applicable to those other conversatios.

kaldaniels
06-05-2011, 04:05 PM
Who is overlooking it? The move to sign Bruce gets an A+. But it was the only of those signings in that category IMO. The other threads are talking about adding talent to what is already here in an attempt to put the team over the top. Bruce was already on the team and is locked up for several more years without the signing. It was a good move but its not really applicable to those other conversatios.

I don't know who it was, but earlier today I read a comment that Walt should have pursued players like Berkman, but instead went after Lewis and Renteria.

If Walt had more money to spend, I am sure he would have returned with more than those 2.

kaldaniels
06-05-2011, 05:08 PM
Just showing up. 2 Walkoffs in 2 days for Albert.

mth123
06-05-2011, 05:13 PM
I don't know who it was, but earlier today I read a comment that Walt should have pursued players like Berkman, but instead went after Lewis and Renteria.

If Walt had more money to spend, I am sure he would have returned with more than those 2.

I do agree that money was a huge factor. But there were some affordable names moved if you were willing to give up some of the blocked prospects. Shaun Marcum comes to mind.

Kc61
06-05-2011, 05:39 PM
I don't know who it was, but earlier today I read a comment that Walt should have pursued players like Berkman, but instead went after Lewis and Renteria.

If Walt had more money to spend, I am sure he would have returned with more than those 2.

It was me.

I'm not blaming Walt Jocketty per se. I don't know who made the decision to stand pat.

It was the decision of a team happy to be pretty decent again.

It was not the decision of a team trying to be a top contender.

MikeThierry
06-05-2011, 05:56 PM
I'm curious what 2 seasons Albert got screwed out of the MVP. Cause a in couple of the ones I think are being referred to Albert didn't lead the league in WAR.


Kal, particularly in 2006 Pujols should have won over Howard considering that Pujols had better overall hitting numbers and lead his team to the playoffs. I hate using WAR as a measuring stick for MVP but if you want to go there, Pujols lead all of baseball with an 8.5 WAR compared to just a 6.2 WAR with Howard.

2003 was another year where I could make the argument that Pujols should have won that year. Now Bonds did have an insane OBP that year compared to Pujols, due to receiving 148 walks. However, Pujols played in 27 more games than Bonds. Bonds only had 90 RBI's compared to Pujols 124. More over if you want to get into WAR, Bonds had 10.5 WAR compared to Pujols 10.1 WAR. Not to mention I'm still bitter over the PED issues with Bonds.

2007 there were whole number of players who deserved to win the MVP over Rollins, Pujols being one of them. More than likely Holliday deserved it but still, 2007 was a head scratcher in my opinion. Again, if you want to use WAR as a measuring stick that year, Pujols was 3rd in baseball with a 8.4 WAR compared to Rollins with a 6.9 WAR

kaldaniels
06-05-2011, 06:16 PM
Kal, particularly in 2006 Pujols should have won over Howard considering that Pujols had better overall hitting numbers and lead his team to the playoffs. I hate using WAR as a measuring stick for MVP but if you want to go there, Pujols lead all of baseball with an 8.5 WAR compared to just a 6.2 WAR with Howard.

2003 was another year where I could make the argument that Pujols should have won that year. Now Bonds did have an insane OBP that year compared to Pujols, due to receiving 148 walks. However, Pujols played in 27 more games than Bonds. Bonds only had 90 RBI's compared to Pujols 124. More over if you want to get into WAR, Bonds had 10.5 WAR compared to Pujols 10.1 WAR. Not to mention I'm still bitter over the PED issues with Bonds.

2007 there were whole number of players who deserved to win the MVP over Rollins, Pujols being one of them. More than likely Holliday deserved it but still, 2007 was a head scratcher in my opinion. Again, if you want to use WAR as a measuring stick that year, Pujols was 3rd in baseball with a 8.4 WAR compared to Rollins with a 6.9 WAR

WAR is just a starting point for me just so you know. But I do think it is the best measurement of production we currently have.

I will give you 2006. Albert should have won it that year.

Homer Bailey
06-06-2011, 03:25 PM
Pujols "lead" the Cardinals to 83 wins that regular season, while the Phillies won 85. The central being horribly bad was the only reason the Cardinals even made the playoffs that year.

_Sir_Charles_
06-06-2011, 04:05 PM
Just showing up. 2 Walkoffs in 2 days for Albert.

Yep. Not to mention 4 dingers in the Cubs series total.

MikeThierry
06-06-2011, 09:57 PM
Pujols "lead" the Cardinals to 83 wins that regular season, while the Phillies won 85. The central being horribly bad was the only reason the Cardinals even made the playoffs that year.

It still doesn't take away the fact that Pujols had a better year than Ryan Howard in 2006. One could make the argument that 2006 was possibly Pujols best year of his career.

Plus I'll take 83 wins if that means the Cards win the World Series that year. Doesn't matter how you get there, it matters how you finish.