NL MVP

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Is there still room for debate on this topic?

I say, "No," but I'm willing to be amused. I was amused by Tom Boswell's column on Saturday in the Washington Post (read it online).

How many more voting sportswriters will drop the ball on Bonds, as they did last year?

[Patience]

three weeks ago I would have said Sosa. But as the Cubs fade and Bonds gets stronger he should have it.

[WWSituation]

There is no arguement. If the Giants aren't contenders, you can make a case for Sosa or Gonzo, but alas, the point is moot.

Anybody who doesn't vote for Bonds is a sour grapes jerk, just like the reporters who voted for Mo Vaughn over Albert Belle a few years back.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

P, what are your qualifications for MVP? I'm not asking for the voting sportswriters' qualifications: I'm interested in yours.

I'm thinking personal boycott of any paper with a sportswriter who voted for Bonds in any place but first on the ballot, if he doesn't win. I'm not even a Bonds or Giants fan. But there's no fudging his stats, no matter what ignorance remains on the planet.

At no time after the All-Star Break have I ever thought that someone else should win this award.

Dubious stat against Bonds: Boswell cites "production" = Runs + RBI - HR (HRs are counted once each in the first two terms). He even states that "insiders" consider this to be of utmost importance.

A closer look shows that Bonds has had fewer chances to drive runs in than Gonzalez or Sosa. Even when he does, he doesn't get much to look at. Is a player who reaches for pitches while there are runners in scoring position a better player than one who's willing to take a walk in the same situation?

My stat (I may have stolen this from a pseudo of mine): RBI/runners in scoring position. Note that the numerator is ALL RBI, even those scoring from first or home. It's a built-in bonus for solo HR hitters and deep doubles hitters. I'd think a respectable mark in this stat would be above 0.5. Hit half of them in.

Interesting stats from Rob Neyer on espn.com. When runners are in scoring position:

PA BI OBP Slug
Barry 152 58 .642 .943
Sammy 191 82 .505 .672

Some gleaning:
1. 35.8%, or 54 PA, he doesn't get on base. Some of these might be sac flies. Assume none.
2. Assume 1.2 RBI per hit. That comes up to 47 hits.
3. This leaves us with 51 WALKS with men in scoring position! 1.2 RBI/hit might be a bit high, but still: the situation calls for careful pitching, and the situation calls for careful hitting. And Kent's up next, and that's a big dropoff this season.
4. The same assumptions and analysis yield Sosa with only 16 walks. A more aggressive hitter, I suppose, and his slugging percentage shows the dropoff for trying too hard.
5. Trying to figure out my stat: Assume 1.3 batters in scoring position per opportunity.
Bonds: 132/(151*1.3) = 0.67
Sosa: 149/(191*1.3) = 0.60. Bonds is 10% better in the clutch, assuming all those assumptions.

[Anonymous]

I will loosely restate (from baseballprospectus.com) the best reason why Barry Bonds should be the unanimous N. L. MVP: Barry Bonds' 2001 season can be favorably compared with the best season(s) of Babe Ruth.

This should not even be an issue.

(Any other outcome makes a joke out of this award, like the Gold Glove award to that slick fielding DH Rafael Palmeiro.)

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Agree completely, MennoA.

[Patience]

my biggest factor for Sosa was how much he carried that team. The next best hitter & RBI guy was non-existent. Add to that superior RBI & runs scored. I have always favored the Most Valuable concept rather than just the best player in the league.

Also his HR totals were getting pretty close at the time. Since then I have seen so many numbers supporting Bonds, they can't be ignored and the Giants kept close while the Cubs have fallen back. Also Bonds has kept consistant, even picking up pace throughout the season.

At the all-star break I was actually leaning towards Gonzalez. The total bases were record pace and the HR difference was small. I believe he also had RBI & batting average.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Keep that up, P, and you'll be a sportswriter yet! (No, not meant to be a compliment.)

Even if Sosa carried the team, if there's someone in the league that could have carried them farther, then that someone would be a more valuable player than Sosa.

Matter of fact, since McGriff showed up, Sosa has carried the team even more (McGriff just piling on more dead weight). Does that make him more valuable than he was before?

I figure the best player must contain the most value. Unless... we try to divide stats by salaries! If so, then Paul LoDuca gets my vote. Hardly makes a thing, OPS = 0.902. And a catcher, except for Park. (Another reason to let Park go: take that Mednoza-boy with him.)

I'm still unclear of your sense of "value." Sure, he's far and above other Cubs, but it's a league thing, not a head&shoulders above your teammates award. If so, my vote still goes to Bonds. He's clearly carrying the Giants, and who knows where they'd be without him. (At least he's trying to carry the Giants, but no one seems to want to jump on, much less get near him.)

[Drzy]

I think the NL MVP debate has gotten out of hand. I predict 30 of the 32 first place votes going to Bonds, with just the two Chicago writers voting for Sosa (which is perfectly understandable).

[Patience]

If there is a closeness to the stats, I will usually consider among who means more to their team. If Chicago didn't have Sosa they would have been much farther down than SF, who still could contend w/o Bonds. A lot of this is also gut feel, ahead of stats.

Like Stargell in (80?) or Sandburg in (84?)

But in the last month Bonds has separated himself, and I have seen a lot more stats to support the argument.

[Botsy]

I've never seen opposing pitchers be so afraid of someone. Last night he was walked twice and hit by a pitch to go along with his single in two at bats.

With the number of times Jeff Kent come up to the plate with Bonds on base (Does anyone know where to find a good stat for this that would compare with other players?), why doesn't he have 150 RBIs by now? I mean, he's a good hitter, but is no where near last year's performance.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Try (OBP * plate appearances) - HR. I think OBP includes reaching base due to error. There might be a time or two when Bonds reaches home on a double+error.

It's a lot of times. Many of those times Bonds walked, there were already men on base.

That's the difference between Bonds and Kent. Same thing happened last year, except Kent actually did better than expected and the Giants made the playoffs. Even last year, Bonds was perceived by the real decision-makers -- pitchers and managers -- as more valuable/dangerous than even a great Kent.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

The walks record shows just how valuable a player is. Kent came through last night.

All that's required is a blowout game and a pitcher with too much pride.

[Botsy]

Barry rules, but how awesome is A-Rod? Batting .323 with 52 dingers for a SS? Not to mention a .632 Slg, 135 RBIs and 133 runs scored. He's not too bad of a fielder either (No. 2 in double plays in MLB).

[Rockhound]

The production stat (runs+RBI-HR) IS one of the better stats. It always amazes me that baseball for the last 60 years or so, has pretty much ignored Runs as a key statistic. I'm not going to look up the date, but RBI's are in fact a "recent" (say within the last 80 years) stat.

In Football, Touchdowns are big stat (witness most fantasy leagues), in basketball its points, and in hockey its the combination of goals + assists. Why does baseball care so little about the guy that scored? There are no RBIs without runners.

[Guerilla poster]

Since when did A-Rod join the NL.

[Patience]

on the topic of runs, I feel Rickey is not getting the due he deserves. He had the misfortune of setting the run record the same day as the HR record is tied. Two more hits for 3000. If he gets those, he should call it quits this year.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I got a newspaper saying he "uncharacteristically praises teammates" for assisting.
He's been praising them all year, from what I've read. Just goes to show how hard a reputation is to shake.

He does the right thing by crediting teammates for a team-dependent statistic (just like RBI), and gets back-handed for it.

Career runs is a product of OBP, helpful teammates, and a long career. In Rickey's case, add a generous helping of SB's.

[Patience]

same for Bonds, everything I have seen of him during this has been gracious & professional.

especially liked the exchange with Aurilla after he doubled. The radio announcers picked up on it as it happened.

Also liked the line he added in about a few of his team mates slipping in rib shots during the congradulations

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I think his teammates have finally recognized that he does put it all out there. He always has, just prefers the company of his family off the field. If that's being a "cancer" to the team, then that's one team with bigger issues than it's realizing.
They realize that any replacement for Bonds -- choose anyone in either league -- will be less productive.

Anyone up for a spirited debate about HR's being "rally-killers"?

[Patience]

if there are runners on base, I believe from a fan's perspective there is more happening a better chance.

most players, however don't hit better with runners on base or in scoring position. and the really good hitters would have the same intensity if still down with the bases loaded.

So any runs scored are good. A HR should rally the troups, not take the wind out of the sails.

any counter opinions?

[Anonymous]

Anyone up for a spirited debate about HR's being "rally-killers"?

DTNF, do you read the Neyer board on ESPN.com? Or did you have that same fight elsewhere?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I read, but don't post. I've had a hard time registering (ironic and true). The posters usually are writing what I think anyway. And I have less in common with them than people here.

I'm a big fan of Neyer's columns. None of that Gammons crap. All numbers, no people.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I especially like his venom toward Tony Muser. True frustration.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I read this morning another vote for Sosa. A non-voting columnist.
Her rationale:
1. Three years with 60+ homers. And poor Sammy, no one thinks that's worth mentioning!
Excuse me, but I heard all about it when he hit his 60th this year. Lots of times.
2. He hit 50+HR and 150 RBI. The only player to have done that in a long time. And he's done it twice! Poor Sammy. And he's doing it without "protection" (defined loosely as a very good player batting after Sammy). Think of what he can do with protection!

I'm down to about two columnists out of about 15 in this fish-wrap. One's the soccer guy, the other's the TV guy.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Just wondering now whether it will be unanimous.
Or will some disgruntled writer create some attention for himself?

[Patience]

Runs + RBI - HR, winner has to be Sosa

[Dr T Non-Fan]

If only Bonds had fewer homers,...

[Patience]

Bonds convincingly; I'm actually surprised Sosa didn't do better compared to those behind him.

lets see if this works
1st 2nd 3rd total
Bonds, S.F. 30 2 -- 438
Sosa, Chi. 2 17 8 278
Gonzalez, Ari. -- 8 21 261
Pujols, Stl. -- 5 3 222
Berkman, Hou. -- -- -- 125
Green, L.A. -- -- -- 112
Bagwell, Hou. -- -- -- 109
C. Jones, Atl. -- -- -- 100
Helton, Col. -- -- -- 90
Schilling, Ari. -- -- -- 24



_________________
I've been through the desert on a horse with no name...
In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Patience on 2001-11-19 15:58 ]</font>

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I'll be firing off some e-mails to the two writers who know absolutely nothing about baseball.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Two guys from Chicago voted for Sosa. That's no excuse. What a load of sausage.

[Brad Spirrison]

How can you fire on the Chicago writers when even Bonds himself said that Sosa and Gonzales deserved the MVP as much as he did?

[Anonymous]

When Bonds says it, he's being gracious. When the writers vote it, they're being foolish.

Like when you're visiting someone and they say, "Oh, we wish you could stay longer." You shouldn't reply, "Great! I'll bring my luggage in from the car."

[Laffit Pincay, Jr.]

So it was just a coincidence that the two guys that saw Sosa's obvious superiority over Bonds were from Chicago. Sounds like homers to me.

Really, over a span of a few years Sosa does stand out as an MVP but has had the bad luck of guys out doing him in any one individual year. Now if Bonds would retire like McGuire just did it would be Sammy's turn.

Maybe next year for Sosa, probably never for the Cubs.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Sosa won it when he didn't deserve it. Just like Kent last year.
A leading expert in the field declared Bonds' year the best ever.
Too bad the second city has to live with second-rate sportswriters.

[WWSituation]

Does anyone find it interesting that Curt Schilling got more consideration form MVP than Randy Johnson (the CY Young winner)?

[Anonymous]

DTNF - you are definitely a non-fan and don't know your baseball. Who would you say should have won in 98? Mac? Not a chance.

Sosa has been THE most productive ballplayer in each of the past 4 seasons. While I agree Barry deserves this year's nod, it is by no means an obvious choice. Barry had an incredible individual year. He did not have as nearly a team influencing year as Sosa had. Sometime the MVP award is deserving for an individual's unheard of accomplishment. Most times it is for the individual's value to the team.

I am appauled that other writer's could not see that and voted poorly. The voting should have been closer.

Finally, Cubs in '06, 100 years is a good round number! The naught dynasty is already in the works. Just watch.

[Anonymous]

uiman - Can you tell us what you mean by "productive"?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

uiman: based on this year's performance, who would you have rather had on your team: Bonds or Sosa? If you had the choice at the beginning of the season, knowing what you know now, who would it be? Cubs are lucky these two bozos aren't the GM of the beloved Cubbies. (Although that McGriff trade was a dog.)
That's how I'd choose the MVP. For a single year.
If you could provide stats and ranking for Sosa in OBP and Slugging for the past four years, then I might agree with giving Sosa the MVP for the past combined four years.
No, I'm not a big fan of baseball. The numbers tell most of the picture. SportsCenter shows the rest, albeit through "Eastern Sports Programming Network" eyes.

[Patience]

I'll split the difference

Bonds far & away this year. The 500 OBP even more than the HR's

but Sosa did deserve it over McGwire. HR race was tight & Sosa had RBI, Runs & average I believe.

as for Schilling, that seems to happen every year where the non-CY winner beats the winner for MVP

[Anonymous]

http://chicagosports.com/cubs/content/story/0,1984,168065,00.html

Read it, you will learn. Again, I give Barry the award for unheard of individual achievement. That appears to be a category for MVP consideration that diverts from the definition of MVP. Sosa still receives the award due to the "strict" definition but that is not the generally accepted definition. If you don't understand that you should stop typing.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Sorry, can't get to that page. Please enlighten me the best you can.
Use English. I don't know Trollese too well. Especially with a Fan-Boy accent.

[General Kenobi (ret.)]

Try this. (http://chicagosports.com/cubs/content/story/0,1984,168065,00.html)

[Anonymous]

Patience,

In 1998, McGwire had Sosa beat by 93 points in OB% (.470 to .377) and 105 points in SLG% (.752 to .647). Sammy beat Mac by an insignificant 9 points in BA (.308 to .299). Runs and RBI are so team-dependent that they are much less persuasive to me than the stats I just quoted.

Mac wuz robbed.

(Very similar arguments could be made this year, with Bonds creaming Sosa in OB% and SLG%, with both having a BA of .328. Not close.)

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Nope. Sorry Ben, your Jedi tricks are no match for Websense.
And Safeweb recently changed their mind about providing access around Websense.
I can probably view it after 5:00 my time.
Until then, I'm ignorant.

[Patience]

it worked if you copied the whole thing & pasted.

How is a .324 average with runners in position clutch when you hit overall .328

Granted Sosa had the RBI & Runs, but that is a function of the team, someone must have been getting on & knocking him in.

Aurilla was great, Kent bellow par. 4 times Bonds was intentionally walked with a man on first. His OBP was over .500, because they wouldn't pitch to him & Kent wasn't coming through. The fact that he accomplished what he did in so few at bats is amazing.

That he didn't score more was not his fault. That he didn't knock in more was nobody would give him a chance in the critical at bats. It's amazing he wasn't lunging at every close pitch

[Anonymous]

Here's the crux of Greenstein's article:Why I voted for Sosa

Bonds’ season might have been the greatest individual offensive season in baseball history, but Sosa had a better team offensive season. The game is about scoring runs, and Sosa beat Bonds in both RBIs and runs scored.

Sosa led baseball in runs scored, with 146, while Bonds had 129. Sosa also led baseball with 160 RBIs, one for every game he played and 23 more than Bonds. He also finished 94 in front of Ricky Gutierrez, who was second on the Cubs. That's the greatest differential in baseball history.

Sosa also had 37 intentional walks, the most ever for a right-handed hitter, and was at his best when the game was on the line (he batted .324 with runners in scoring position and went 10-for-15 with the bases loaded) and when the games mattered most (he hit .385 in August and .369 after Sept. 1).

He also gets points off for misspelling "Bonds's".

[Patience]

Pseud:

I didn't have the numbers, but it was how I felt at the time. Can't totally remeber the rationale. Wasn't St.Louis awful that year?

Could be the RBI & Runs meant more to me then. I won't argue it.

[Patience]

actually S' is correct as possessive on a name ending in S

[Anonymous]

I'm sticking with Mr. Strunk (http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1) on this one.

All singular nouns take "'s", and I'm willing to fight any man who says otherwise.

PS - Other issues now. Those morons voted for Ichiro.

[Anonymous]

Way to go Ichiro. What a season.

Pseud, who would you rather see?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Sosa had a great season. Bonds had the best season ever.
Runs + RBI - HR is not a comparative statistic. This is an obvious mistake of people who don't really know baseball, but are in position to relay information. The first two rely on teammates. Sosa had better teammates, so he deserved the Most Valuable PLAYER award?
Bonds hit better than his average with men in scoring position.
Bonds hit a higher percentage of runners in scoring position in. Sosa had more chances, so he SHOULD have more RBI.
Bonds walks more, because he knows that swinging at bad pitches is bad for the team.

I could go on and on, but I did learn something from Greenstein: He doesn't know baseball, and he is in no position to be voting for such awards.
(I also learned about the apostrophe. Thanks, guys.)

[Dr T Non-Fan]

The differential to the nearest teammate is also one I would not use in defining valuable. Mostly, since I could (in deeply fantasized theory) replace Sosa with Bonds and get so much more out of each plate appearance.
Now there's a thought: Bonds playing for Chicago. Of course they wouldn't be able to afford ANY pitching.
I also see Barry in Texas, being paid in buildings. Very illiquid, and hard to carry around.

[Anonymous]

Let's see how these arguments work. If you have good teammates, you won't stand out so much as the obviously best player on the team, so that's bad. If you have cruddy teammates, you'll stand out, but you won't be on a contender, and you won't have big RBI and Runs numbers, so that's bad, too.

I guess the trick is to have teammates that are good, but not too good, and to have the best of them bat directly around you in the lineup to pad your counting stats.

[Anonymous]

DTNF: In Texas, he'd be paid in petroleum. Very liquid, but still difficult to carry.

(PS - I like my petroleum like I like my women: light, sweet, and crude.)

[Dr T Non-Fan]

"Why I voted for Sosa: So you wouldn't stop reading this local rag."

[Dr T Non-Fan]

The paper's posting other fan-boy letters about Sosa, all with the same unvaluable individual statistics, goes to show how much they need their less-radiant readers to buy their papers.

The paper's perception of important stats -- BA HR and RBI -- shows that they're woefully behind the learning curve. The Chi teams must play to their paper's ignorance.

Straight up trade: who'd you rather have? That tells me who the most valuable player in the league is.

Lastly, I don't remember seeing the Cubs in the playoffs. So why is Bonds penalized when Sosa isn't?
As soon as Sosa can lay off the bad pitches, he'll be just as good. So selfish, to want to hit instead of help the team.

[Anonymous]

DTNF must be from some baseball starved local like Atlanta where fans don't quite know whether a playoff game is happening or not. Anyway, the RBI+RUNS-HRs stat is fair for the Ricky Hendersons, the Ichiros, and the Bonds and Sosas. It rewards those with high OBP, those who hit in the clutch, and does not overstate the all too popular HR. There may be a stat that fine tunes the comparison, but for ease and simplicity, this one works.

AND, the top 5 of the Cub order is preferred over the Giants top 5? Even a drunk bleacher-bumb would disagree.

[Botsy]

The problem with the Runs + RsBI - HRs statistic is that an RBI single is worth the same as a solo HR.

It rewards those with high OBP, those who hit in the clutch, and does not overstate the all too popular HR.

Bonds had an OBP over .500 and hit better in the clutch (saw a stat somewhere) and Sosa still beats him in this stupid stat.

Don't get me wrong. Sammy is awesome! He's the second best hitter in baseball.

[Anonymous]

Re: R + RBI - HR

The subtraction does eliminate double counting of runs due to homers, but leaves in double counting of all other runs. If a player homers, this stat gives him +1 +1 -1 = 1, which matches the number of runs on the board. If Player A hits a double, and is then driven in by Player B's single, A gets +1 +0 -0 = 1, and B gets +1 +1 -0 = 1. The stat registers two total runs, but only one run is actually scored.

As a stat that comes closer to matching the actual runs scored, (R + RBI)/2 is probably a better bet. It would undercount somewhat, since not all Rs have a corresponding RBI.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Now that OBP and Slugging are available for free online, "Runs Involved In Due To Productive Teammates (RIIDTPT)" can be thrown aside, used only in Chicago as filling in the BRAAAAT-wurst.