I was talking about last year's stats. I honestly don't think Pujols is the MVP this year, I just think the argument behind Bonds's selection is seriously flawed.
Originally posted by GrimisNL Manager of the Year 1. Phil Garner, Houston 2. Tony LaRussa, St. Louis 3. Jim Tracy, Los Angeles
Garner deserves it because I'm not sure what he put in their water, but it worked....
Probably the same stuff he injected the 1992 Milwaukee Brewers with. With a little more time, Molitor, Yount, Gantner, Listach, Hamilton, Jaha, Spiers, Surhoff and company would've caught Toronto for the AL East title, setting up a Milwaukee/Oakland ALCS...and the Crew owned the A's that year.
That would've given us Brewers/Braves in the '92 World Series...loser stays in Milwaukee. :-)
Ned Yost is OK, but some days I miss Scrap Iron.
Star wipe, and...we're out. Thrillin' ain't easy.
THE THRILL ACW-NWA Wisconsin Home Video Technical Director...& A2NWO 4 Life! (Click the big G or here to hear the Packers Fight Song in RealAudio...or try .AU, .WAV or .MIDI!)
I'll add to the heap for Phil Garner as NL Manager of the year. Bobby Cox would be a close second. Both teams were written off in early July, and both had amazing second halves to get in the playoffs. Plus, with this being the 25th anniversary of the "We Are Family" Pirates, I have no problems with Scrap Iron gettin' some accolades.
Originally posted by eviljonhunt81I was talking about last year's stats. I honestly don't think Pujols is the MVP this year, I just think the argument behind Bonds's selection is seriously flawed.
2003 stats:
Name AB R RBI HR BB SO AVG OB SLG OPS Pujols 576 137 124 43 75 65 .359 .439 .667 1.106 Bonds 390 111 90 45 148 58 .341 .529 .749 1.278
Comparable. Pujols has the total stats, Bonds has the percentage stats. However, those who want to point at Bonds' "mere" 90 RBIs should note that he actually drove in runs at a better rate (4.3 AB/RBI versus Pujols' rate of 4.6 AB/RBI).
So then you might look at teams. Well, the Cards, who that year also had Edmonds, Rolen, and Renteria (OPS of 1.002, .910, and .874, respectively), finished 85-77. The Giants, whose 2nd-most productive hitter was RAY DURHAM of all people (OPS of .807), finished 100-61. It wasn't just that the Giants made the playoffs...it was that they finished 14.5 games better than the Cards. Bonds also hit the 500/500 milestone, which resonated
To overcome that, Pujols would have to have had, as hard as it would be, MUCH BETTER stats than he finished with to beat Bonds for MVP. He would need a comparable OB%, a better SLG% (good luck), and a higher OPS. He did none of those three.
The only thing that changed this year was Bonds had an even better season (arguably the best of his past four, 2003 was probably the worst) while the Giants and Cards essentially switched spots in the standings. Bonds however was THAT much better than Pujols...the way Pujols was not in 2003.
As I said in an earlier thread, it doesn't matter how good of numbers people like Pujols put up...they're going to have to wait until Bonds retires before they start picking up MVPs. As long as Bonds is simultaneously hitting in the .350+ range while hitting HRs every 8 ABs, no one is going to touch him.
Oh, and I pretty much agree with all of Grimis' picks, although I don't think it would be a *travesty* if Johan doesn't unanimously win. I can see Schilling getting a vote here or there.
Which is my point. Pujols wasn't the MVP, despite putting up better numbers, and the common argument was that his team didn't make the playoffs. Now, his team runs away with what was supposed to be the most competitive division in Baseball, but Bonds is getting MVP because his team would be even worse without him.
By that logic, Griffey should get the MVP. Rather than merely speculating about how bad a team would be without the player, we have concrete proof.
Originally posted by eviljonhunt81Which is my point. Pujols wasn't the MVP, despite putting up better numbers, and the common argument was that his team didn't make the playoffs. Now, his team runs away with what was supposed to be the most competitive division in Baseball, but Bonds is getting MVP because his team would be even worse without him.
By that logic, Griffey should get the MVP. Rather than merely speculating about how bad a team would be without the player, we have concrete proof.
Um....Bonds still put up pretty impressive stats in 03. And since the key term in Most Valuable Player is Value, one could interpret that to mean value to their ballclub. In this case, Bonds provides the most value to his team. If the Giant's had finished 15 games out of a playoff spot we wouldn't be having this conversation, but they didn't, so we are.
Originally posted by eviljonhunt81Which is my point. Pujols wasn't the MVP, despite putting up better numbers, and the common argument was that his team didn't make the playoffs. Now, his team runs away with what was supposed to be the most competitive division in Baseball, but Bonds is getting MVP because his team would be even worse without him.
By that logic, Griffey should get the MVP. Rather than merely speculating about how bad a team would be without the player, we have concrete proof.
No, the argument was always "Sorry, kid. There's a dude over there who's doing things nobody's ever seen before. Wait a couple years."
Originally posted by eviljonhunt81Which is my point. Pujols wasn't the MVP, despite putting up better numbers, and the common argument was that his team didn't make the playoffs. Now, his team runs away with what was supposed to be the most competitive division in Baseball, but Bonds is getting MVP because his team would be even worse without him.
The problem is, Pujols did NOT put up better numbers than Bonds in '03. He put up COMPARABLE numbers.
In '04, Bonds blew away everyone while also carrying a mediocre team within a game of the playoffs...if Pujols put up Bonds' '04 stats in '03 for the 85-77 Cards, I guarantee he would have been handed the MVP. Guarantee.
Yes, I know that's a safe guarantee, but it should still mean something. ;)
Comparable numbers with 186 more AB's. Scary to think what Bonds could have done with 576 plate appearances. According to the stat line posted, Bonds scored 26 less runs, walked 73 more times, and managed to hit 2 more home runs. Add 186 more AB's and those numbers shift absurdly in Bonds' favor.
Edited in response to Whitebacon
(edited by Kidbrooklyn on 9.10.04 0447) "What you don't understand, you can make mean anything." -Palahniuk
Originally posted by KidbrooklynComparable numbers with 186 more AB's. Scary to think what Bonds could have done with 576 plate appearances. According to the stat line posted, Bonds scored 26 less runs, walked 73 more times, and managed to hit 2 more home runs. Add 186 more plate appearances and those numbers shift absurdly in Bonds' favor.
For the NL MVP, the problem with Pujols is he had a better year last year and didn't win. Pujols 03 was better than Pujols 04. Bonds 04 is better than Bonds 03. If you say that Bonds deserved it in 03 over Pujols, he certainly deserves it this year. The only category in which Pujols is clearly superior this year is GWRBI he has 20, while Bonds has only 13 GWRBIs. Of course 13 is a pretty good number considering they don't pitch to him, especially in close games.
I believe the plan was to give them away and then destroy, a combination of Disco Demolition Night and the Snickers Crunchers commercials. Fortuantely, common sense prevailed.