PDA

View Full Version : NL MVP McCutchen????



MikeThierry
07-06-2012, 01:59 PM
I'm reading this article by Stark and while I agree with many of his decisions here, I can't put McCutchen as mvp. Votto is clearly the best hitter in the game right now and where would the Reds be without him? It amazes me that McCutchen is winning in the Sports Nation poll by a wide margin as well. I guess people like the feel good story rather than what is realistic.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8134086/handing-baseball-midseason-awards

reds44
07-06-2012, 01:59 PM
He won't be when they finish 10 games under .500.

westofyou
07-06-2012, 02:19 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/tom_verducci/07/03/midseason-awards-cano-votto/index.html

NL MVP
1. Joey Votto, Reds
2. Andrew McCutchen, Pirates
3. David Wright, Mets
4. Ryan Braun, Brewers
5. Melky Cabrera, Giants
6. Carlos Ruiz, Phillies
7. Carlos Beltran, Cardinals
8. Carlos Gonzalez, Rockies
9. Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins
10. R.A. Dickey, Mets

MikeThierry
07-06-2012, 02:26 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/tom_verducci/07/03/midseason-awards-cano-votto/index.html

NL MVP
1. Joey Votto, Reds
2. Andrew McCutchen, Pirates
3. David Wright, Mets
4. Ryan Braun, Brewers
5. Melky Cabrera, Giants
6. Carlos Ruiz, Phillies
7. Carlos Beltran, Cardinals
8. Carlos Gonzalez, Rockies
9. Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins
10. R.A. Dickey, Mets


Verducci's list seems more logical.

RedlegJake
07-06-2012, 03:06 PM
I can definitely see why McCutcheon is being listed very high in the MVP list. Look very closely at his numbers and Joey's. Mac is having a career year, his Pirates are the feel good story of the summer, he plays a more critical defensive position and I feel he has been every bit as important to the Pirates or more so than Votto has been to the Reds in driving both teams pretty much 1 weapon offenses. Just because I'm a Reds and Votto fan doesn't mean I can't see the validity of McCutcheon's argument. In fact if the season ended today I'd vote for Andrew! But there's this funny marathon thing about baseball and its just July 6th and there is a lot of baseball left. Mac and the Pirates were in this position later than this last season and dropped like a bomb once August got going. Let's re-examine this the first week in October.

PuffyPig
07-06-2012, 03:17 PM
Right now I would likely pick McCutheon as his Pirates are leading.

Votto beat Pujols in 2010 for largley the same reason.

powersackers
07-06-2012, 03:20 PM
Right now I would likely pick McCutheon as his Pirates are leading.

Votto beat Pujols in 2010 for largley the same reason.

Same.

smith288
07-06-2012, 03:25 PM
Nah. McCutchen's hair bothers me. VOTTOOOOOOOOO

:D

Homer Bailey
07-06-2012, 03:30 PM
Right now I would likely pick McCutheon as his Pirates are leading.

Votto beat Pujols in 2010 for largley the same reason.

I'm surprised by this line of thinking Puffy. I tend to agree with you 90+% of the time, but I don't consider the standings when I consider who the most valuable player is. That person so far has been Votto. It's not absurd to consider AM as the MVP, I just don't think he does anything better than Votto does, other than stealing bases.

RedlegJake
07-06-2012, 03:31 PM
Nah. McCutchen's hair bothers me. VOTTOOOOOOOOO

:D

Doesn't bother me ever since Cueto started pitching for the Reds :laugh:

MikeThierry
07-06-2012, 03:43 PM
I'm surprised by this line of thinking Puffy. I tend to agree with you 90+% of the time, but I don't consider the standings when I consider who the most valuable player is. That person so far has been Votto. It's not absurd to consider AM as the MVP, I just don't think he does anything better than Votto does, other than stealing bases.

We don't agree much Homer, but I agree with you 100% here. Convergence of the universe maybe?

I can't overlook a player thats having arguably the best year of any player since Pujols 2008 season. Votto is clearly the best player this year. Just as Pujols won it in 2008 despite his team not making the playoffs, so too should Votto even if the Reds aren't in 1st. I don't think standings should have anything to do with it if the player is having arguably one of the best years of any player (outside of a roided Bonds) in a decade or so.

Homer Bailey
07-06-2012, 04:01 PM
We don't agree much Homer, but I agree with you 100% here. Convergence of the universe maybe?

I can't overlook a player thats having arguably the best year of any player since Pujols 2008 season. Votto is clearly the best player this year. Just as Pujols won it in 2008 despite his team not making the playoffs, so too should Votto even if the Reds aren't in 1st. I don't think standings should have anything to do with it if the player is having arguably one of the best years of any player (outside of a roided Bonds) in a decade or so.

If you agree with me, then I know I'm wrong! ;)

For the record, I said the same thing in 2010. I thought Votto deserved to win over Pujols, but it should not have been the margin that it was.

MikeThierry
07-06-2012, 04:14 PM
If you agree with me, then I know I'm wrong! ;)

For the record, I said the same thing in 2010. I thought Votto deserved to win over Pujols, but it should not have been the margin that it was.

Yeah I agree. I know that Strauss of the STL Post Dispatch got a lot of flack for being the only Pujols vote but I didn't think it was as clear cut of a choice as the voters made it out to be. Pujols actually had a better WAR than Votto did that year.

PuffyPig
07-06-2012, 04:22 PM
I'm surprised by this line of thinking Puffy. I tend to agree with you 90+% of the time, but I don't consider the standings when I consider who the most valuable player is. That person so far has been Votto. It's not absurd to consider AM as the MVP, I just don't think he does anything better than Votto does, other than stealing bases.

McCutheon plays a premium defensive postion at an elite level with trumps Votto's elite fielding 1B.

McCutheon's hitting is certainly in the ballpark with Votto.

When elite players are close, the fact they have led their team into the playoffs is the deciding point.

jojo
07-06-2012, 04:27 PM
Its a shame the Ruiz is having the season he is having amid the season that the Phillies are having.

Homer Bailey
07-06-2012, 04:45 PM
McCutheon plays a premium defensive postion at an elite level with trumps Votto's elite fielding 1B.

McCutheon's hitting is certainly in the ballpark with Votto.

When elite players are close, the fact they have led their team into the playoffs is the deciding point.

Does he though? Fangraphs certainly doesn't agree. One season with a positive UZR, and the rest negative.

oneupper
07-06-2012, 04:49 PM
After what the Pirates have been through, if they win the Central, McCutcheon is going to be MVP. I'd vote for him too.

Johnny Footstool
07-06-2012, 05:04 PM
If we're talking about who gets the most votes for the MVP award, it definitely depends on how the team performs. Voters usually vote for players on playoff teams, and if a playoff team has one clear standout player like McCutcheon, that guy usually wins.

Personally, I think he deserves it.

oregonred
07-06-2012, 05:13 PM
He won't be when they finish 10 games under .500.

Wishful thinking but I don't see them going 30-50 over the 2nd half of the season even though they are overachieving on the pythag and lights out in close games. They fell apart last year, but this is a better team that is continuing a nice progression.

57 wins in 2010
72 wins in 2011
8x wins in 2012

vaticanplum
07-06-2012, 05:15 PM
Yeah, I'm with oneupper and Johnny Footstool. The Reds are a more well-rounded team than the Pirates, so it stands to reason that they'll eventually pull ahead. But if the Pirates win the division, McCutchen deserves the MVP for that exact reason -- he's on a weaker team and proportionately more valuable.

PS The Pirates are not going to win the division.

AtomicDumpling
07-06-2012, 06:37 PM
I think the MVP should go to the best player in the league because he provided the most value. It is not his fault if his teammates did not add enough additional value to get the team to the playoffs. I think it cheapens the award to give it to a player that was inferior to another player that year.

Looking back in history we think of the great players who won the MVP as being the best in baseball that year. We don't like to think that maybe there were other players who performed better than the MVP. Was Joe Morgan really the best player in the NL in 1975 and 1976 or do we need to wonder if he was merely gifted the award because the Reds won their division? The MVP award is not very meaningful if it is given to the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league. It sullies the integrity of the award.

It is similar to awarding a World Championship to a team that couldn't win its own little division instead of another team that dominated the league that year. A World Series title does not carry the same significance that it did last century because you no longer have to be a great team to win it. Five of the last 13 champions finished in second place and another won only 85 games. Those teams have cheapened the meaning of a championship. They couldn't carry the jockstraps of the truly great champions of the previous century when you actually had to win more games than any other team in your league in order to have a chance to win the World Series.

I oppose allowing 2nd place teams to win the World Series just like I oppose giving the MVP Award to the 2nd best player in the league.

MikeThierry
07-06-2012, 06:48 PM
Atomic, voting prior to the 1960's was notorious for voting in players that really didn't deserve the award. Ted Williams probably should have had more MVP awards than he did. Stan Musial was absolutely robbed by Marty Marion (worst MVP vote of all time) simply because Musial won it the year before. I agree with you on this topic.

VR
07-07-2012, 01:18 AM
If he keeps it up, and Pirates beat the Reds.....I'd be all for it. Great story, and very fun baseball player to watch. A little Eric Davis in him.....I like that.

RedlegJake
07-07-2012, 02:15 AM
If he keeps it up, and Pirates beat the Reds.....I'd be all for it. Great story, and very fun baseball player to watch. A little Eric Davis in him.....I like that.

Me too. I love the game and the Pirates if they pull it off well...it would be good for the game. I wouldn't like how Selig would spin it but that doesn't matter really. McCutcheon would deserve it. Joey will have many more great seasons.

Johnny Footstool
07-07-2012, 02:22 AM
I think the MVP should go to the best player in the league because he provided the most value. It is not his fault if his teammates did not add enough additional value to get the team to the playoffs. I think it cheapens the award to give it to a player that was inferior to another player that year.

Looking back in history we think of the great players who won the MVP as being the best in baseball that year. We don't like to think that maybe there were other players who performed better than the MVP. Was Joe Morgan really the best player in the NL in 1975 and 1976 or do we need to wonder if he was merely gifted the award because the Reds won their division? The MVP award is not very meaningful if it is given to the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league. It sullies the integrity of the award.

It is similar to awarding a World Championship to a team that couldn't win its own little division instead of another team that dominated the league that year. A World Series title does not carry the same significance that it did last century because you no longer have to be a great team to win it. Five of the last 13 champions finished in second place and another won only 85 games. Those teams have cheapened the meaning of a championship. They couldn't carry the jockstraps of the truly great champions of the previous century when you actually had to win more games than any other team in your league in order to have a chance to win the World Series.

I oppose allowing 2nd place teams to win the World Series just like I oppose giving the MVP Award to the 2nd best player in the league.

So Barry Larkin's MVP award was a total travesty.

AtomicDumpling
07-07-2012, 03:31 AM
So Barry Larkin's MVP award was a total travesty.

Did I say that? Let me check... No. No I didn't.

Maybe you think Larkin wasn't the best player that year and shouldn't have been given the MVP?

This is exactly why limiting the award only to good players on playoff teams cheapens the award -- you have to do some research to determine if the guy who won the award in the past was really the best player that year or if he actually got blown away by a guy whose team wasn't good enough. If you can't automatically recognize the MVP in any given year as the best player in the league that year then what meaning does the award really have? Ask any person off the street what an MVP award indicates for a game, a series, or a season and they will say it means that guy was the best player in that game, series or season. But in baseball many MVPs actually were not the best player that year but they were given the award anyway. Therefore the MVP Award in baseball doesn't really tell us much. So now we can't definitively say that Barry Larkin was the best player in the National League in 1995 because maybe he wasn't -- and that is a shame.

vaticanplum
07-07-2012, 10:31 AM
I just very much feel that "valuable" implies valuable *to* something. It's relative. A very good baseball player on a basketball team is not valuable. I have never thought that MVP does imply the flat-out best player in baseball.

Cy Young, gold gloves -- those to me imply the best player at his position, regardless of his relative value to his team. It can be argued that a gold glove second baseman is less valuable to his team if he's standing next to a gold glove shortstop, but he's not any less good and deserves that award regardless. MVP to me does have an inherent larger picture component. Just my opinion.

Raisor
07-07-2012, 11:45 AM
MVP doesn't mean Most Valuable Player to a team, playoff team, etc,

it means Most Valuable Player in the league.

Hence the National League's Most Valuable Player Award.

Vottomatic
07-07-2012, 11:49 AM
I still can't believe Larkin got the MVP that year. One of the worst MVP's ever.

vaticanplum
07-07-2012, 12:52 PM
MVP doesn't mean Most Valuable Player to a team, playoff team, etc,

it means Most Valuable Player in the league.

Hence the National League's Most Valuable Player Award.

According to whom?

Information given to voters by BBWAA:

"The very first lines of the letter sent to M.V.P. voters say this: “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.” (emphasis mine)

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/sports/baseball/blue-jays-bautista-and-yankees-granderson-discuss-mvp-criteria.html?scp=1&sq=baseball%20mvp&st=cse)

We can discuss our opinions on what MVP means, but make no mistake, they are strictly opinions. The official criteria is as nebulous as any we can devise -- frankly more so.

AtomicDumpling
07-07-2012, 07:53 PM
The point is that the MVP Award in baseball is essentially meaningless because it often goes to a player who was not even close to being the best player in the league that year. What value does the MVP Award have if it does not indicate the winner was the best player that year?

RedlegJake
07-07-2012, 07:59 PM
Because its not the Best Player of the Year Award? Most Valuable says to me just as it says in the guidelines - the Player Most Valuable to His Team. That is a lot different than simply who is the best player in the league.

AtomicDumpling
07-07-2012, 08:23 PM
Because its not the Best Player of the Year Award? Most Valuable says to me just as it says in the guidelines - the Player Most Valuable to His Team. That is a lot different than simply who is the best player in the league.

Then who cares who wins it?

It is not called the Best Player on a Playoff Team Award either.

The player who had the best year provided the most value to his team. If his teammates fail to provide much extra value it is not his fault. If a player wins the award even though he was not the league's best player then he did not provide as much value to his team, but his teammates did provide a lot of extra value. So that player is being rewarded for having better teammates than the best player.

Way to go Barry Larkin in 1995! You had a good year and had great teammates! Too bad Mike Piazza and Barry Bonds (pre-steroids) had truly fantastic seasons but their teammates sucked.

Giving the "MVP" Award to someone who was quite clearly inferior to another player or players just cheapens the award to the point where many people couldn't care less who "wins" it.

Big Klu
07-07-2012, 10:44 PM
I always thought Larkin's 1996 season was far superior to his 1995 season.

RedlegJake
07-08-2012, 01:10 AM
Larkin's 1995 MVP falls under the category of Hollywood's lifetime achievement Oscars - and baseball's writers do that from to time for players they really like...no its not a perfect award...but its not a perfect world - somehow we all keep paddling upstream though

GAC
07-08-2012, 07:12 AM
Wishful thinking but I don't see them going 30-50 over the 2nd half of the season even though they are overachieving on the pythag and lights out in close games. They fell apart last year, but this is a better team that is continuing a nice progression.

57 wins in 2010
72 wins in 2011
8x wins in 2012

And take a look at their 2nd half schedule too. They've got 35 of the 77 remaining games with teams that are under .500. They've got 13 games left vs the Cubs, and 10 vs Houston.

And while McCutchen is having an MVP year, lets not forget what a nifty off-season acquisition of a pitcher named A.J. (9-2, 3.74 ERA) has done to bolster this rotation that also includes McDonald (9-3, 2.37 ERA). And their BP is solid, with a league leading 2.65 ERA, 29 saves (2nd).

You look at this team on paper, especially offensively, and it has people wondering when is the bottom going to fall out because historically it has at some point in the second half. I'm not so sure this season.

There is about 20 of us from work going Saturday, Aug 4th vs the Pirates. One who will be attending is not a fan of baseball at all, and knows nothing about the game. He's totally NFL (Steelers) and NBA. Though born and raised in Ohio he hates all Ohio sports teams, thinks they're all losers, and loves to play the antagonist with anyone who is a fan of them. Why? Simply because he's so full of himself, has the mouth to go with it, and really takes joy in being that irritant. I totally ignore him, and that bothers him. So I think that's why, since the Pirates beat us up pretty good head-to-head last season, and are doing good this year .... he's decided to go after any Red fans in the work area. Simply to be that A-hole. He says he wants to sit next to me at the game, but I told him there ain't no way (I'll be there with my kids), knowing his intentions, that will happen since I purchased the tickets and will control who sits where. So if you're watching the game that day, and see a huge commotion in section 416 (around 3B), that's the rest of us beating the crap out of this guy! LOL

redsmetz
07-27-2012, 05:22 AM
The NY Times has a piece on Andrew McCutchen this morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/sports/baseball/pirates-contend-for-playoffs-and-mccutchen-for-mvp.html?ref=sports

redsmetz
07-27-2012, 05:22 AM
The NY Times has a piece on Andrew McCutchen this morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/sports/baseball/pirates-contend-for-playoffs-and-mccutchen-for-mvp.html?ref=sports

Vottomatic
07-27-2012, 08:25 AM
I think his only competition was Votto, and with Joey injured and McCutcheon's great season, I think it's a slam dunk unless McCutch falls apart.

bucksfan2
07-27-2012, 08:36 AM
I think the MVP should go to the best player in the league because he provided the most value. It is not his fault if his teammates did not add enough additional value to get the team to the playoffs. I think it cheapens the award to give it to a player that was inferior to another player that year.

Looking back in history we think of the great players who won the MVP as being the best in baseball that year. We don't like to think that maybe there were other players who performed better than the MVP. Was Joe Morgan really the best player in the NL in 1975 and 1976 or do we need to wonder if he was merely gifted the award because the Reds won their division? The MVP award is not very meaningful if it is given to the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league. It sullies the integrity of the award.

It is similar to awarding a World Championship to a team that couldn't win its own little division instead of another team that dominated the league that year. A World Series title does not carry the same significance that it did last century because you no longer have to be a great team to win it. Five of the last 13 champions finished in second place and another won only 85 games. Those teams have cheapened the meaning of a championship. They couldn't carry the jockstraps of the truly great champions of the previous century when you actually had to win more games than any other team in your league in order to have a chance to win the World Series.

I oppose allowing 2nd place teams to win the World Series just like I oppose giving the MVP Award to the 2nd best player in the league.

I like your posts. They make me think and are well thought out even if I don't agree.

In regards to the MVP discussion I agree that it should go to the best player but think its much more complicated. I think that over the course of a 162 game season it should go to the best player but would weight it so someone who wins a division or is in a playoff race gets the award if two players are similar. Performing when your team needs it is much more valuable than when your team has been out of the hunt for two months. Would David Wright be performing the same if his team is 20 games out or 2 games out? Don't you think the pressure would magnify itself during a tight playoff race?

Right now I think its a dog fight between McCutchen and Votto. McCutchen getting the slight edge becaue Votto will be shy about a months worth of games at the end of the season. McCutchen kept his team offensively in games with a below average supporting cast. But I do think if Votto comes back and is his normal self and helps the Reds win the division he will win the MVP.

powersackers
07-27-2012, 09:08 AM
Park factors should be considered if numbers are the deciding factor. Playing half his games in GABP should hurt Votto a bit.

Johnny Footstool
07-27-2012, 11:48 AM
MVP is analog, not digital. I'm in favor of keeping it that way.

That goes for the Hall of Fame, too.

RedsBaron
07-27-2012, 12:05 PM
Was Joe Morgan really the best player in the NL in 1975 and 1976 or do we need to wonder if he was merely gifted the award because the Reds won their division?

In 1975 Joe Morgan's WAR was 10.8, the highest in the NL; the second highest WAR was Tom Seaver's 7.9.
In 1976 Morgan's WAR was 9.5, the highest in the NL; the second highest WAR was Mike Schmidt's 7.9.
We don't have to wonder if Morgan deserved the MVP in either of those seasons. The wonder is whether or not he should have also been named MVP in 1972, 1973 and 1974.

toledodan
07-27-2012, 12:07 PM
McCutchen should be MVP at this point. of course if the pirates don't make the playoffs he may not get it.

lidspinner
07-27-2012, 12:09 PM
If AM keeps even half of this up till the end of the season then he has to get MVP....dude is tearing the cover off the ball and is doing it all the while playing a prime position.....If I were a voter, he would be my front runner right now....alot can change in a few months though

RedsBaron
07-27-2012, 12:29 PM
I expect that McCutchen will also be helped by having played much better than was expected. While there have been a number of repeat MVP winners, over the years voters have also often given the award to the player who seemed to "come out of nowhere" as compared to the player who just turned in another typical as expected season.
For example, Jason Giambi was named MVP in 2000 as his A's won their first title in several seasons. He had a big year, hitting .333 with 43 HRs, 137 RBI, a .647 SLG and leading the league with a .476 OBP. He only ranked 5th in the AL with a 7.4 WAR, well behind league leader Pedro Martinez's 11.4.
The next season Giambi lead the AL with a 8.8 WAR, and his raw numbers were pretty much the same as 2000: .342 38 120, with AL leading OBP of .477 and SLG of .660. He didn't repeat as MVP, as the "new kid in town" was Ichiro Suzuki took the award even though he was only 5th in WAR.
In 1962 Willie Mays lead the NL in WAR with 10.2, and in HRs with 49 to go with a .304 average and 141 RBI, but the MVP was given to Maury Wills, who ranked 9th in WAR with 5.8; Wills was the new big thing, stealing 104 bases. He wasn't nearly as good as Mays but he got the award.
Roberto Clemente partisans made a big deal prior to 1966 about Clemente being underrated and it later paid off for Roberto as he was given the 1966 MVP. Yes, he hit for more power than before with 29 HRs, but he also ranked 6th in WAR with 8.1, behind Mays who had a WAR of 8.8 and my own MVP pick, Sandy Koufax, whose 9.5 WAR tied for the NL lead with Juan Marichal.
Barry Bonds won 7 MVP awards in his career*, but he arguably was wrongly denied the 1991 MVP. He followed up his 1990 MVP season with another big year, ranking 2nd in the NL with a 7.6 WAR (Tom Glavine lead the NL but pitchers rarely are given the award). The media named Terry Pendleton MVP. Pendleton's WAR ranked 5th with a 5.8 score, but he "came out of nowhere," a former unknown who won the NL batting title for the division champ Braves.

RedsManRick
07-27-2012, 12:37 PM
So Barry Larkin's MVP award was a total travesty.

Travesty is pretty harsh, but I think you'll find most people in baseball would support the statement "Barry Larkin was not the best/ most productive player in the NL in 1995."

What's confusing to me is that he was clearly more productive in 1996, including putting up the first 30-30 season from a SS and winning a gold glove at the same time and yet finished a ridiculous 12th in the MVP voting.

Suffice it say, the MVP award voting produces some really silly results sometimes.

So far in 2012, I think Cutch, David Wright and Ryan Braun are in a dead heat. The guy not getting any pub whatsoever and who is criminally underrated is Chooch Ruiz in Philly.

RedsBaron
07-27-2012, 01:09 PM
So far in 2012, I think Cutch, David Wright and Ryan Braun are in a dead heat. The guy not getting any pub whatsoever and who is criminally underrated is Chooch Ruiz in Philly.

Braun has virtually no chance at MVP. The Brewers are out of the race, he won it last year with some subsequent resulting controversy following his failed drug test, and he only ranks 5th in the NL in WAR at 4.5 (Votto is 4th at 4.6). He isn't the "new kid in town."
David Wright leads in WAR with 5.5 followed by McCutchen at 5.3. At this point it is McCutchen's award to lose.

RedsManRick
07-27-2012, 01:54 PM
Braun has virtually no chance at MVP. The Brewers are out of the race, he won it last year with some subsequent resulting controversy following his failed drug test, and he only ranks 5th in the NL in WAR at 4.5 (Votto is 4th at 4.6). He isn't the "new kid in town."
David Wright leads in WAR with 5.5 followed by McCutchen at 5.3. At this point it is McCutchen's award to lose.

I wasn't assessing their chances, rather their merit, in my view. I prefer fWAR to rWAR, where Braun is 3rd at 5.3, behind Wright (5.6) and McCutchen (5.4). Votto is 5th at 4.8.

Given the massive role of narrative in determining who gets the MVP, I agree completely that its McCutchen's to lose. I also agree that Braun has basically no chance this year, precisely for the reasons you mentioned.

Johnny Footstool
07-27-2012, 02:28 PM
I expect that McCutchen will also be helped by having played much better than was expected. While there have been a number of repeat MVP winners, over the years voters have also often given the award to the player who seemed to "come out of nowhere" as compared to the player who just turned in another typical as expected season.
For example, Jason Giambi was named MVP in 2000 as his A's won their first title in several seasons. He had a big year, hitting .333 with 43 HRs, 137 RBI, a .647 SLG and leading the league with a .476 OBP. He only ranked 5th in the AL with a 7.4 WAR, well behind league leader Pedro Martinez's 11.4.
The next season Giambi lead the AL with a 8.8 WAR, and his raw numbers were pretty much the same as 2000: .342 38 120, with AL leading OBP of .477 and SLG of .660. He didn't repeat as MVP, as the "new kid in town" was Ichiro Suzuki took the award even though he was only 5th in WAR.
In 1962 Willie Mays lead the NL in WAR with 10.2, and in HRs with 49 to go with a .304 average and 141 RBI, but the MVP was given to Maury Wills, who ranked 9th in WAR with 5.8; Wills was the new big thing, stealing 104 bases. He wasn't nearly as good as Mays but he got the award.
Roberto Clemente partisans made a big deal prior to 1966 about Clemente being underrated and it later paid off for Roberto as he was given the 1966 MVP. Yes, he hit for more power than before with 29 HRs, but he also ranked 6th in WAR with 8.1, behind Mays who had a WAR of 8.8 and my own MVP pick, Sandy Koufax, whose 9.5 WAR tied for the NL lead with Juan Marichal.
Barry Bonds won 7 MVP awards in his career*, but he arguably was wrongly denied the 1991 MVP. He followed up his 1990 MVP season with another big year, ranking 2nd in the NL with a 7.6 WAR (Tom Glavine lead the NL but pitchers rarely are given the award). The media named Terry Pendleton MVP. Pendleton's WAR ranked 5th with a 5.8 score, but he "came out of nowhere," a former unknown who won the NL batting title for the division champ Braves.

Yes. MVP has often been an award for the year's best story; journalists love a good story, and they want to pay respect to it.

I'm completely fine with that. Larkin was the best story of 1995, IMO, and he deserved to be remembered for it.

paulrichjr
07-28-2012, 09:54 AM
I don't think Votto will win for one very important reason that I honestly never expected. It is the Most Valuable Player Award not best player award as someone has already stated. Votto won't win because the Reds are proving without any doubt that they can win without him. Would that continue for a whole season? No. But in the eyes of the voters I think they will look at this period as a reason to vote for someone else.

vaticanplum
08-02-2012, 02:35 PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/andrew-mccutchen,28778/

vaticanplum
08-02-2012, 05:14 PM
All joking aside, looking at this now in August, I do feel that McCutchen is running away with this, especially with Votto out. He is currently at .373/.433/.632. His OPS is 1.064. He has missed only four games this year.

As a side note, dude makes $500K this year. At this point I would guess he is bringing that into PNC Park all on his own every weekend series. Ok, maybe not quite, but almost. He is locked in through 2017 with a team option for 2018, and is still only 25 years old. Best deal the Pirates have made in decades, and arguably one of the best in baseball.

cincrazy
08-02-2012, 05:23 PM
With Votto missing his time, and with the way the Reds have played during his absence... unfortunately, he doesn't have a prayer of winning the MVP. Cutch in a landslide, unless him and the Pirates hit a massive slump, or he gets hurt himself.

redssince75
08-02-2012, 05:26 PM
Ludwick?

:roll: