2011 Awards Thread

[roadman]

Re: 2011 Awards Thread

Saves debate more noteworthy than the NL MVP Race?

Congrats to Braunie and congrats to Kemp on having a great year.

Saves are useless.

Ask Bob Feller, Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson. Those are the true ironmen.

[DrJones]

Re: 2011 Awards Thread

Since it's apparently a key factor in determining MVP awards, is there somewhere online that lists all pitcher's W-L records after his team lost the previous game? Since Vance Worley won a bunch of games for the Phillies, I'm assuming Halladay is one of the least valuable pitchers in baseball.

[CabreraMVP]

Re: 2011 Awards Thread

Since it's apparently a key factor in determining MVP awards, is there somewhere online that lists all pitcher's W-L records after his team lost the previous game? Since Vance Worley won a bunch of games for the Phillies, I'm assuming Halladay is one of the least valuable pitchers in baseball.

Or maybe you could look up the definition of valuable instead. He was more valuable, because he ended losing streaks, because the other pitchers were horrible.

Halladay is not nearly as valuable, considering he has Cliff Lee, Hamels, Oswalt, Worley, behind him. If the Phillies lost Halladay they still have a top rotation.

You can say Halladay is a better pitcher and he is, but he was not as valuable to his team as Verlander was in 2011. That's not even up for debate is it?

It was a 1 year thing. It was extremely rare for 1 pitcher to be so dominant while the rest of his starters were so horrible, and to top it off, the team was a great one. Verlander won't ever come close to the MVP again. He might not have another 2011, but we will see.

Him being MVP was just everything happening to align perfectly with the way things unfolded with his success and the team around him. It won't happen again.

[Reaman]

Re: 2011 Awards Thread

Justin may not win the AL MVP again. But I don't see his pitching skills leaving him anytime soon. The man is just flat out dominate.

[Jgainsey]

Re: 2011 Awards Thread

Or maybe you could look up the definition of valuable instead. He was more valuable, because he ended losing streaks, because the other pitchers were horrible.

Halladay is not nearly as valuable, considering he has Cliff Lee, Hamels, Oswalt, Worley, behind him. If the Phillies lost Halladay they still have a top rotation.

You can say Halladay is a better pitcher and he is, but he was not as valuable to his team as Verlander was in 2011. That's not even up for debate is it?

It was a 1 year thing. It was extremely rare for 1 pitcher to be so dominant while the rest of his starters were so horrible, and to top it off, the team was a great one. Verlander won't ever come close to the MVP again. He might not have another 2011, but we will see.

Him being MVP was just everything happening to align perfectly with the way things unfolded with his success and the team around him. It won't happen again.

I don't think the definition of valuable proves an MLB MVP award one way or another. And it certainly doesn't improve your argument in the way you probably want.

The MVP is simply an award given to a player with an outstanding performance that year. You have your own opinion on what makes a player the MVP, and that's fine, but don't look to the definition of the word valuable to shed any light on the matter.

Fwiw, here is what the BBWAA members are told in regards to MVP voting:

“There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

Also...

"Give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10." The voters understand that a 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. They must fill in all 10 places on the ballot and they are to consider only regular-season performances. The writers must also, "Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters."

I know if I were to be given such guidelines, I'd probably always vote for the player with the best overall performance. I doubt I'd give much consideration to things that are completely out of a player's control, like the skill level of his team mates or his indirect effect on losing streaks.

[CabreraMVP]

Re: 2011 Awards Thread

If the Voters can make up their own definition of valuable, why can't I? I wish they just voted for the best player also, but the majority of voters really on care about the guys who are on the best teams.

The guy I responded too just made a stupid, ignorant comment acting like the sole reason that Verlander won is because he ended a lot of losing streaks. While that helped him, it's just 1 small thing that he did well this year. But the poster was acting like a smartass saying that Halladay is just a borderline/average pitcher because the Phillies had a good 5th starter. Which is stupid.

[DrJones]

Re: 2011 Awards Thread

The guy I responded too just made a stupid, ignorant comment acting like the sole reason that Verlander won is because he ended a lot of losing streaks. While that helped him, it's just 1 small thing that he did well this year. But the poster was acting like a smartass saying that Halladay is just a borderline/average pitcher because the Phillies had a good 5th starter. Which is stupid.

Merry Christmas to you, too.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: 2011 Awards Thread

If the Voters can make up their own definition of valuable, why can't I? I wish they just voted for the best player also, but the majority of voters really on care about the guys who are on the best teams.

The guy I responded too just made a stupid, ignorant comment acting like the sole reason that Verlander won is because he ended a lot of losing streaks. While that helped him, it's just 1 small thing that he did well this year. But the poster was acting like a smartass saying that Halladay is just a borderline/average pitcher because the Phillies had a good 5th starter. Which is stupid.

Orrrr..... he was just pointing out the flaw behind a stat that doesn't prove much one way or another.

[CabreraMVP]

Re: 2011 Awards Thread

Orrrr..... he was just pointing out the flaw behind a stat that doesn't prove much one way or another.

It's just a small little stat that proved he ended a lot of losing streaks, potentially taking away at least 10 extra losses from the Tigers. And that is just one small reason why he was valuable, going by the actual definition of valuable. It's not a big deal at all.

Why are we talking about this in December.