If Joe was fair and objective, he would probably realize, that Charlie Keller was more valuable to the Yanks in 1942 as well. Charlie topped Gordon in OPS, SLG, HR, RBI, and OB, at least in 1987 Dawson was clearly the most valuable Cub.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Gordon was the best Yankee in 1942, but who cares, let's all just agree it was DiMaggio. Why are you avoiding even addressing the obvious point? The Yankees won, the Red Sox lost. Who cares what Williams led the league in - I'm told it doesn't matter that Pujols is leading the league in all kinds of things, because he wasn't valuable enough to lead the Cardinals to the Playoffs. Remember that - you've all said it in one form or another 100 times? Yes, I'm noticing that your arguments flip and flop back and forth depending on who it is you're arguing for and I'm calling you on it.
Sorry, guys, but this is purely a logical tautology - if you think Williams deserved the MVP in 1942 and that Howard deserves it this year then you are contradicting yourself. I thought the point was obvious, but I'm NOT saying Gordon deserved the MVP - YOU ARE. Or actually, since you are championing a player that isn't close to the best player on his own team this year, you are really arguing that Rizzuto deserved it. These posts explaining why Williams deserved the MVP in 1942 contradcit the arguments that you have been making throughout this thread - those are MY arguments, and once you accept them, and start using them yourselves, then you end up with Pujols as MVP this year. Or you flop back to the other argument and look silly.
Did Williams deserve the MVP in 1942 because he was clearly the best player? (my answer - yes, your answer - yes) Does the fact that the Red Sox finished way out of playoff contention even enter into it? (my answer - no, your answer - no) so far, so good Does Pujols deserve the MVP in 2008 because he is clearly the best player? (my answer - yes, your answer - no) Does the fact that the Cardinals finished way out of playoff contention even enter into it? (my answer - no, your answer - yes) and there it is
Winner of the 2008 MVP - probably Howard; winner of this thread's logical consistency award - dallasactuary
Either give me my award or explain why Williams did NOT deserve the MVP in 1942. That is the logical burden you now carry.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
One thing to consider about the playoff/MVP argument is that in 1942 only one team from each league (1 out of 8) qualified for the postseason (12.5%) while today four teams out of 31 qualify (or about 26%) so statistically at least a team is much more likely to make the playoffs in 2008 than in 1942, so that should be taken into account. You don't even have to win your measly 4-team division to make the playoffs these days thanks to the beauty of the wildcard. For me, that's another reason why you can't evenly apply the concept of making the postseason in 1942 as you should in 2008.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
OK, but if it was harder to make the postseason in 1942, then that's all the more reason - applying the Howard "logic" - that the player on the one team in the AL that managed to do it should get the MVP. It works both ways, and like all arguments that rest on the "valuable = playoffs" error, it doesn't lead anywhere that makes any sense at all.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Since I'm not a Mets fan, I don't follow them that often, so my question will seem simple-minded, but doesn't David Wright merit as much if not more consideration than Delgado for MVP? Mets experts, speak up and educate me here.
Almost all good ballplayers deserve "some" consideration for the MVP award.
The hardest thing for most to accept is the FACT, that there are no specific qualifications, no exact formulas, no way in the universe to remove all subjective views from the choice.
It is not like winning the HR crown, or being the largest revenue producing movie, or the the best selling car.
It is much more like a beauty contest, an academy award winner, a best color for the bedroom choice.
It is not 1942 anymore, personal viewing via conventional TV, cable TV, internet, and other much more expedient methods to actually observe the players is now available. The post-season situation has greatly changed. The person who won last year has changed ( dont kid yourself, that does matter a bit ). The amount of MLB games played and the number of players has increased vastly, thus the basis for comparision and evaluation has also changed. There are even new ballparks and new ways to combine stats for study.
The one thing that has not changed and is quite hard to measure, is the "gut" feeling of the voter as to who is the most valuable. What is of the most importance, what is of minor importance, how much does the team come in the picture, and a host of other things to be ranked by the voter. The voters are not machines, nor robots, they are human, they often act properly, they sometimes make mistakes.
They are NOT selecting the best player for 2008, they are selecting who they feel in the 2008 atmosphere, was the most "valuable" player, and it is an opinion, not a perfectly quantifiable item.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
OK, I can accept that. And that leaves us back where we were on page 2 of this thread - if that's all it is, then it's trivial. I can accept your argument that the MVP is nothing more than a gut feeling on the part of a few sportswriters, or I can accept your argument (elsewhere) that an MVP Award should count as evidence that a player is more worthy of the HOF than he would be without it. What I can't accept is both arguments at the same time, because they're contradictory.
And I tried getting agreement that Pujols was the best player in the NL this year, and that Utley was the best player on the Phillies, and couldn't even get that. Both statements are only "opinion" in the sense that in my opinion grass is green, but even then there are people arguing that Howard is actually the best player in the NL and the best player on the Phillies, as if they needed to stick to that story to justify why he should win the MVP. You're saying they can drop that pretense, which would be best for everybody.
I asked a question quite a ways back that nobody even tried to answer: if Howard is the most valuable player, then will someone please tell me to whom he is the most valuable? The Phillies benefitted more from the presence of Utley this year than from the presence of Howard; that's just a fact and I'm getting tired of the IMO BS when it doesn't apply. Howard was more valuable than Utley for a couple of weeks, Utley more valuable than Howard for several months. For Howard to be the "Most" "Valuable" Player absolutely requires us to redefine "most" or "valuable" to something completely different than any meaning either word has ever had - it requires us to make the award trivial. But you and I are agreeing on that now; I don't know if the others are on board, though.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Joe Gordon was the worst MVP. Joe Gordon, the best player on the team that won the AL that year, THAT Joe Gordon.
That is where you are wrong, I never said it was the worst choice I simply said it was a worst choice then Hawks.
Secondly and lastly just because you say Gordon was the best player on that team does not make it so, just because you say something over and over does not make it fact.
IMO Joe D had a better season and if I look again i can make a case for Keller too.
You can twist it anyway you want but you did say Gordon deserved it over Williams and not because some here feel Howard should win it. That is what you are saying know.
Ive never said that Howard was the best player this yr. Ive said all along that he MAY win the MVP because of his gaudy HR and RBI numbers AND what he has done down the stretch.
I also don't recall anyone else saying anything other then what I just said too.
The MVP award, not without flaws, is a majority view of whom the most valuable guy was.
It is, regardless of one's perception of correctness, a general indicator of a player's worth, and usually, not always, is a pretty good indicator. There are exceptions and unusual circumstanses, of course.
Nevertheless, Joe Gordon was, in FACT, a winner of the MVP award. Happy, sad,... right, wrong,.... better tasting, or less filling,... it is a FACT, it did happen, it was not park adjusted, or what if-ed, or situationally influenced. It has actully happened, in real life, and forever in the final evaluation of his quality, it will be a plus.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
I think Dallas's last few points really have pointed out how the traditional logic of the MVP voting renders the award trivial. I think everyone who has believed in that traditional thought process of the MVP should be scratching their head a bit on that old thought process.
Since everyone has eliminated the first 3/4 of the season as having any matter in this MVP vote, and have narrowed down the teams where nobody on the very best teams, or non playoff teams can win one...then using their own criteria, the MVP is without a doubt C.C. Sabathia!
That is right, he fits all the criteria of the trivial MVP award that nearly everyone on this thread has decided(and what the voters typically do too). We already 'know' that it makes no difference what a player did in the first 3/4 of the season, so you can't hold the fact that Sabathia was not on the Brewers against him.
We also already know that the Brewers do not make the playoffs without him, and that is clear as day. We also know 'he' was 12-2.
We know that he 'saved the day' better than anyone. He was the Dark Knight rescuing his poor citizen Brewers and bringing them to the playoffs! How can you get more valuable than throwing a shutout on the very last day of the season to clinch a playoff birth?
So for every argument that the Howard fans have as reasoning for his MVP, Sabathia has the same points, but only bigger and louder!
P.S. The only thing is that Sabathia's contributions have been the complete opposite of trivial! He truly has played/pitched like not only an MVP for the Brewers, but like HOFer...and not because he had teammates that made him look better than he truly is(aahhm Howard).
<< <i>Secondly and lastly just because you say Gordon was the best player on that team does not make it so, just because you say something over and over does not make it fact.
IMO Joe D had a better season and if I look again i can make a case for Keller too. >>
I also said it wasn't important and let's all just agree it was DiMaggio. I said that because it isn't important; I wish I hadn't said it since it has created yet another avenue for avoiding my point. So I take it back, either DiMaggio or Keller, whichever one you pick, was the best Yankee that year. Now, why didn't that Yankee deserve the MVP?
<< <i>You can twist it anyway you want but you did say Gordon deserved it over Williams and not because some here feel Howard should win it. That is what you are saying know. >>
Oh come on, you show me where I said that. I think Gordon was an absolutely horrible MVP choice and I have never once said anything that could possibly be interpreted otherwise.
And, finally, once we cleared up the confusion over "ought", no, you never said that Howard deserved the MVP. So if you think there are far better choices for MVP than Howard, then my posts aren't directed at you. I've been saying since this thread started that Howard probably would win the MVP; I think everyone here agrees on that. The debate is over exactly how dumb that makes the MVP voters; I'm arguing that it makes them extremely dumb, and I'm not sure exactly how dumb you think they would have to be to give Howard the MVP. Alternatively, maybe nobody is dumb because all we're doing is flipping coins to find a winner of a trivial "award". As a side debate, I'm also curious why Phillies fans aren't furious that Utley could single-handedly make the Phillies a contending team and get so little support for the MVP. But then, if we are all now in agreement that the MVP Award is nothing but a trivial distraction, then I guess the answers to those questions don't really matter - that the MVP Award was trivial was one of the original possible outcomes of this thread, and we appear to all have arrived there. Well, I imagine Dr. J is drooling in his tapioca and shouting "STOCHASTIC" at wary passers-by, but I think the rest of us all agree on that now. Nobody is offering any argument to the contrary, at least.
And jaxxr, just because things happen does not mean that reasonable people have to pretend that those things are important. I do not have to pretend that Joe Gordon is any better a player because sportswriters in 1942 were biased.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
And Steve, from what perspective do you believe that Gordon was a "worse" MVP pick than Williams? To think that it is even possible for one MVP pick to be any better or worse than any other necessarily requires an objective standard of some sort. If something is ONLY an opinion, then it can not be any better or worse than any other. What is the objective standard that you believe should be applied when a sportswriter is deciding who to vote for? If you don't think there is any objective standard that they should follow, then in what way was Joe Gordon or anyone else in any other year a better or worse pick than anyone else?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I know most here should understand this basic concept but it's clear from decades of MVP voting that it isn't necessarily for the "best" player but for the "right" player who helps his team.
Stats of course help but stats don't always transform into who was the most valuable.
Again...because of these basic, simple, easy to understand concepts...Ryan Howard is a stone cold mortal lock for Most Valuable Player.
SteveK, for the love of god, we ALL know how it has been done! It is the severely flawed rationale used to choose...and that is what we are saying is silly and downright trivializes the award!
There has been enough written on here to show exactly how silly that rationale is, and I don't know how any grown man cannot recognize the trivialness in it after thinking it through.
Steve you have flip flopped, were sarcastic, or asked a question when answering a question so many times that I have no idea anymore what you think with regards to Joe Gordon winning the MVP.
About 2 weeks ago in another thread you mentioned Dawson was the worst choice ever. (NOT opinion but fact)
Then I simply stated I felt Joe Gordon was a worse choice, you said that he actually deserved the award. (Or at least I think you did)
Anyway, you seem to love to answer a question with questions and analogies that only you, Hoops and Tom G seem to understand.
So please in simple terms so I know exactly what you are saying please tell me was Gordon the proper choice or not?
(at least in your opinion)
A simple Yes or no will suffice. I do not need any analogies with Howard or Pujols.
YES = he was the right choice
NO= he was not and Williams got hosed.
Then and only then will i at least for once understand what you are saying.
I also said it wasn't important and let's all just agree it was DiMaggio. I said that because it isn't important; I wish I hadn't said it since it has created yet another avenue for avoiding my point. So I take it back, either DiMaggio or Keller, whichever one you pick, was the best Yankee that year. Now, why didn't that Yankee deserve the MVP?
Winpitcher, when I say "we" I am referring to me, Dallas, TOmG, etc... The ones who have been arguing against the use of severely flawed logic and lack of good evidence when choosing an MVP.
<< <i>Steve you have flip flopped, were sarcastic, or asked a question when answering a question so many times that I have no idea anymore what you think with regards to Joe Gordon winning the MVP. >>
That's what makes me so lovable!
<< <i>About 2 weeks ago in another thread you mentioned Dawson was the worst choice ever. (NOT opinion but fact) >>
Yes, I did. It is a fact that that is my opinion.
<< <i>Then I simply stated I felt Joe Gordon was a worse choice, you said that he actually deserved the award. (Or at least I think you did) >>
No, I didn't. I said one could rationalize Gordon's MVP much easier than one could rationalize Howard's MVP.
<< <i>So please in simple terms so I know exactly what you are saying please tell me was Gordon the proper choice or not? >>
No, Gordon was a truly terrible choice for the MVP; whenever there is one player who is so much better than every other player, like Williams and Pujols, they MUST get the MVP or the MVP becomes trivial.
<< <i>Williams won the triple crown that year, Gordon IMO was not even the most valuable player on his own team. >>
So that's the single exception to giving the MVP to a player on a playoff team, you give it to triple crown winners? Because other than the triple crown your answer is exactly analogous to this year: Pujols bestrides the National League like a Colossus he is so much better than everyone else, and Howard is not even close to being the best player on his team. Which I guess sums up why we can still be talking about this after 100 posts and I still don't understand where you stand.
So I'll ask a few simple questions:
If picking the MVP was up to you, who would you pick?
Who do you think was responsible for winning the most games for the Phillies this year?
Other than a triple crown, what else would lead you to pick a player from a non-playoff team for the MVP?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
No, Gordon was a truly terrible choice for the MVP; whenever there is one player who is so much better than every other player, like Williams and Pujols, they MUST get the MVP or the MVP becomes trivial.
Geeze you mean that after all the verbiage you simply could have said the above?
So you were being sarcastic all along, who would have known?
And when I mentioned Gordon that day you could have simply said, "yeah that was a bad one too but I think Dawson's was a tad worse"
I could have then understood ya? Instead you went on and on with sarcastic reply and question after question?
Where I stand? All along I've simply said that it is possible for Howard to win the MVP. And FWIW Pujol's year is NOT as great as William's 1942 season. IMO
I've also said that Sabathia, Manny, and about 3 other guys have a shot.
Dallas you want us to believe that Dawson winning the MVP award over Ozzie Smith was a worse selection then Joe Gordon winning the award instead of a triple crown winning Ted Williams?
<< <i>Dallas you want us to believe that Dawson winning the MVP award over Ozzie Smith was a worse selection then Joe Gordon winning the award instead of a triple crown winning Ted Williams?
Steve >>
Would be interesting to read the 1942 newspaper stories behind the selections at that time. I think Google is beginning to catalog and make available all the major newspaper pages for the past 100 years or so...not sure when that's going to happen. Those newspapers have always been available on microfilm - just a question of getting it on the net.
1987 Andre Dawson, Cubs 269 Ozzie Smith, Cardinals 193 Jack Clark, Cardinals 186
1942 Joe Gordon, Yankees 270 Ted Williams, Red Sox 249 Johnny Pesky, Red Sox 143
1942, pretty close, 1987 not too close, however, it's intresting that both seasons a teamate may have taken votes away from another. Perhaps that effect may hurt a Phillie this season.
The MVP awards are a majority opinion of many professional sportswriters who observe baseball on a daily basis, they can see events or situations not clearly available from boxscores, they often talk to other ballplayers and mangers, thay may gain insight, not easy for casual fans or stat calculators, to evaluate. They are human and do get overly subjective at times, no matter how trival the award may be percieved to be, it is still a fine, positive accomplishment.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Fine, I guess I deserve it after all the long-wnided stuff I've posted, but Steve, you did not answer even one of my three questions. I already know who you think has a shot at winning the MVP, I asked who you would pick. And which player you think won the most games for the Phillies, and what, desides a triple crown, would make you vote for someone on an out of contention team.
<< <i>Dallas you want us to believe that Dawson winning the MVP award over Ozzie Smith was a worse selection then Joe Gordon winning the award instead of a triple crown winning Ted Williams? >>
Yes. Andre Dawson was not among the best 20 players in the NL that year and he was not the most valuable player on his own team. Joe Gordon was, at worst, the fourth best player in the AL, and wherever he ranked the gap from Williams to Gordon not only has fewer people in it but is also smaller in absolute terms than the chasm above Dawson. But while Ozzie or Clark would have made fine MVP picks, the best player in the NL in 1987 was Tim Raines. All things considered, I think the voters blew it in 1987 worse than they did in any other year, as I've said.
And I'm more than a little puzzled why you are so quick to jump on this one. Williams team lost, badly, to the Yankees that year. I would think you would at least understand my frustration over Howard being an MVP candidate this year if Gordon bothers you this much. This is, after all, my point. Why does a far inferior player on a winning team get the MVP over the runaway best player in the league? And one who is not even the best player on his own team, at that? If they kept such stats and it turned out that Gordon had a great September, the analogy to 2008 would be essentially perfect. Would it matter to you if Gordon had the best September on the Yankees? I suspect he probably did, since that is the kind of inane thing that MVP voters obviously look at. Dawson's worst month, BTW, was September.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>The MVP awards are a majority opinion of many professional sportswriters who observe baseball on a daily basis, they can see events or situations not clearly available from boxscores, they often talk to other ballplayers and mangers, thay may gain insight, not easy for casual fans or stat calculators, to evaluate. They are human and do get overly subjective at times, no matter how trival the award may be percieved to be, it is still a fine, positive accomplishment. >>
Or you could say that their job is to engage the reader in an antiquated and dieing buisness. As much as I have always liked the sports section, it has become such a small piece of sports media coverage. Deadlines and word count take precedence over thoughtfulness. Most people only finish half an article, sensationalism and exaggerations are higher priority and so much easier than insight
They need to come out with new articles every day on every sport. They are not paid to step back and spend time analyzing the past. They find their voice, find their story, and as soon as it's done, they move on to the next thing. Some of them are finished their baseball season more than a month ago to focus on football; some don't start paying attention until after the NBA Finals; some spent three weeks on a different continent this year; local stories are always in demand, while what happens nationally is largely ignored. Under those conditions it is extremely easy for them to miss things that are dedicated fans are far better at evaluating. Is that assesment wrong about the small group who have 'earned' the right to vote for MVP?
For whatever reason, Gordon won the Award fairly easily with half the first place votes. Williams got most of the rest, but his teammate Johnny Pesky got 2 and finished third in the voting. DiMaggio and Keller were far behind (7th and 14th). The fact that Pesky got so much support is probably the best sign of all that something was screwy that year - if the sportswriters wanted to stick it to Ted, putting Pesky higher on their ballots than Williams would be a good way to do it, in addition to having Gordon win it, of course. I guess you could say that Pesky and Williams split the Red Sox vote, but it's just too bizarre that Pesky got that much support in the first place; Bobby Doerr was better than Pesky, or at least as good, and finished way out of it. It was a strange vote, for sure, but animosity to Williams just has to be a big part of it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I believe the 1942 MVP vote was really the ONLY one, where a BBWA member(s) voted intentionally incorrect.
The story has it, that one fellow left Ted and his triple crown stats, off the ballot completely, not even good enough for 10th place !
There are probably many times voters dont use the measurements some feel most proper, and many might disagree with their subjective evaluations. 1942 was perhaps the only time an award was "intentionally" meant to ignore a qulaified candidate, and probably the lone dishonest selection.
This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
Just to clarify, you guys are getting your years mixed up.
1939 - Dimaggio MVP - Williams 4th Yankees won pennant 1941 - Dimaggio MVP - Williams 2nd Yankees won pennant - Williams batted .406 1942 - Gordon MVP - Williams 2nd Yankees won pennant 1946 - Williams MVP Red Sox won pennant 1947 - Dimaggio MVP Williams won TRIPLE CROWN 2nd in vote 1949 - Williams MVP Rizzuto 2nd Vern Stephens 7th Yankees won pennant 1950 - Rizzuto MVP Yankees won pennant
It was 1947 when Dimaggio beat Williams in the vote 202-201 that one writer (Mel Webb - a Boston writer) left Williams completely off the ballot. However, it should be noted that three writers left Dimaggio off the ballot and three others had him eighth or lower.
The writers in their defense claimed that it was not just Williams who compiled great numbers but the entire Boston team. Despite all of their runs scored they never won. They figured since they never won that the numbers had nothing to do with winning or losing.
In 1949 when Red Sox shortstop Vern Stephens hit 39 homeruns and drove in 159 runs with 101 walks and a .290 batting average he finished 7th in the voting. In 1950 Stephens hit .295 with 30 homers and 144 runs batted in with 125 runs scored. He finished way down in the voting.
The closer position is a BS position the way it is currently used.
You Lidge example also shows exactly why narrowing down selecting the MVP to only a few teams who just make the playoffs...renders it trivial. That is a judgement of teammates and not player value.
That dope DRJ never understood this, and when I brought up the bullpen he showed how much of a simpleton he was by laughing it off.
If it is true that Lidge did win the Phillies MVP, it just exemplifies what Dallas and I have been saying all along about Howard. Howard is at best the third most valuable on his own team. RBI total or not doesn't change that.
If you look at the overall numbers I would vote for Pujols. Howard struck out 199 times and Pujols struck out only 54 times. Pujols final average was a staggering 106 points better!
winpitcher - While certainly the Boston writers did not like Ted I am not certain how the other writers in the league felt.
Williams won the MVP in 1946, although it was not his best year, because the Red Sox won the pennant. He also won the award in 1949 because the Yankees best candidate was Rizzuto and it would have been hard to justify that all of his "intangibles" equalled Ted's superior batting. If the writers definately had it in for Ted, they would have voted Stephens the MVP in 1949 when he drove in 159 runs.
The voting in the 1940's is tough to figure out certainly, and as jaxxr mentioned the writer's at the time are privy to some information we may not recognize today.
The most obvious answer to me is that a majority of writers liked to pick the best player from the pennant winning team.
The Mets blew 30 saves this past year, had they won just 2 of those games they would be still playing. I wonder just how many of those blown saves were in the 9th inning?
I also wonder what is an average amount a team should have within the course of a year?
<< <i>If you look at the overall numbers I would vote for Pujols. Howard struck out 199 times and Pujols struck out only 54 times. Pujols final average was a staggering 106 points better! >>
The closer position is a BS position the way it is currently used.
You Lidge example also shows exactly why narrowing down selecting the MVP to only a few teams who just make the playoffs...renders it trivial. That is a judgement of teammates and not player value.
That dope DRJ never understood this, and when I brought up the bullpen he showed how much of a simpleton he was by laughing it off.
If it is true that Lidge did win the Phillies MVP, it just exemplifies what Dallas and I have been saying all along about Howard. Howard is at best the third most valuable on his own team. RBI total or not doesn't change that. >>
Hoopster,
You have already been certified a raving lunatic.
You still cannot get it through your thick skull that leading the majors in both HR and RBI is a major accomplishment and something "average" players do not accomplish.
Your anti Howard rhetoric (racism?) is really disturbing.
Comments
Just because you think you are right does not make it so.
Steve
Avg, OBpct, Slgpct, OPS, R, TB, HR, RBI, BB
Gordon? Oh he led the league in K's and GIDP (thats ground into double plays).
And he (Gordon) is not ever mentioned in the top 3 in any of the above lists that Williams led in.
All of a sudden Dallas claims the voters (who are always wrong) got that one right.
Is it because someone (me) challenged him on this particular award in some long forgotten thread?
Again just because you say Gordon was the right choice Steve does not make it so.
The writers (the guys that actually vote) Hated Williams and thus that IMO is the reason he did not win it.
Yeah a guy wins a TRIPLE CROWN and the 2nd basemen of the Yankees wins the award.
Oh I get it they made it to the POST SEASON that year and that must be the reason!
Steve
A guy named Dimaggio may disagree with you.
Steve
If Joe was fair and objective, he would probably realize, that Charlie Keller was more valuable to the Yanks in 1942 as well.
Charlie topped Gordon in OPS, SLG, HR, RBI, and OB, at least in 1987 Dawson was clearly the most valuable Cub.
Sorry, guys, but this is purely a logical tautology - if you think Williams deserved the MVP in 1942 and that Howard deserves it this year then you are contradicting yourself. I thought the point was obvious, but I'm NOT saying Gordon deserved the MVP - YOU ARE. Or actually, since you are championing a player that isn't close to the best player on his own team this year, you are really arguing that Rizzuto deserved it. These posts explaining why Williams deserved the MVP in 1942 contradcit the arguments that you have been making throughout this thread - those are MY arguments, and once you accept them, and start using them yourselves, then you end up with Pujols as MVP this year. Or you flop back to the other argument and look silly.
Did Williams deserve the MVP in 1942 because he was clearly the best player? (my answer - yes, your answer - yes)
Does the fact that the Red Sox finished way out of playoff contention even enter into it? (my answer - no, your answer - no) so far, so good
Does Pujols deserve the MVP in 2008 because he is clearly the best player? (my answer - yes, your answer - no)
Does the fact that the Cardinals finished way out of playoff contention even enter into it? (my answer - no, your answer - yes) and there it is
Winner of the 2008 MVP - probably Howard; winner of this thread's logical consistency award - dallasactuary
Either give me my award or explain why Williams did NOT deserve the MVP in 1942. That is the logical burden you now carry.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The hardest thing for most to accept is the FACT,
that there are no specific qualifications, no exact formulas, no way in the universe to remove all subjective views from the choice.
It is not like winning the HR crown, or being the largest revenue producing movie, or the the best selling car.
It is much more like a beauty contest, an academy award winner, a best color for the bedroom choice.
It is not 1942 anymore, personal viewing via conventional TV, cable TV, internet, and other much more expedient methods to actually observe the players is now available. The post-season situation has greatly changed. The person who won last year has changed ( dont kid yourself, that does matter a bit ). The amount of MLB games played and the number of players has increased vastly, thus the basis for comparision and evaluation has also changed. There are even new ballparks and new ways to combine stats for study.
The one thing that has not changed and is quite hard to measure, is the "gut" feeling of the voter as to who is the most valuable.
What is of the most importance, what is of minor importance, how much does the team come in the picture, and a host of other things to be ranked by the voter. The voters are not machines, nor robots, they are human, they often act properly, they sometimes make mistakes.
They are NOT selecting the best player for 2008, they are selecting who they feel in the 2008 atmosphere, was the most "valuable" player, and it is an opinion, not a perfectly quantifiable item.
And I tried getting agreement that Pujols was the best player in the NL this year, and that Utley was the best player on the Phillies, and couldn't even get that. Both statements are only "opinion" in the sense that in my opinion grass is green, but even then there are people arguing that Howard is actually the best player in the NL and the best player on the Phillies, as if they needed to stick to that story to justify why he should win the MVP. You're saying they can drop that pretense, which would be best for everybody.
I asked a question quite a ways back that nobody even tried to answer: if Howard is the most valuable player, then will someone please tell me to whom he is the most valuable? The Phillies benefitted more from the presence of Utley this year than from the presence of Howard; that's just a fact and I'm getting tired of the IMO BS when it doesn't apply. Howard was more valuable than Utley for a couple of weeks, Utley more valuable than Howard for several months. For Howard to be the "Most" "Valuable" Player absolutely requires us to redefine "most" or "valuable" to something completely different than any meaning either word has ever had - it requires us to make the award trivial. But you and I are agreeing on that now; I don't know if the others are on board, though.
That is where you are wrong, I never said it was the worst choice I simply said it was a worst choice then Hawks.
Secondly and lastly just because you say Gordon was the best player on that team does not make it so, just because
you say something over and over does not make it fact.
IMO Joe D had a better season and if I look again i can make a case for Keller too.
You can twist it anyway you want but you did say Gordon deserved it over Williams and not because
some here feel Howard should win it. That is what you are saying know.
Steve
because of his gaudy HR and RBI numbers AND what he has done down the stretch.
I also don't recall anyone else saying anything other then what I just said too.
Steve
It is, regardless of one's perception of correctness, a general indicator of a player's worth, and usually, not always, is a pretty good indicator. There are exceptions and unusual circumstanses, of course.
Nevertheless,
Joe Gordon was, in FACT, a winner of the MVP award. Happy, sad,... right, wrong,.... better tasting, or less filling,... it is a FACT, it did happen, it was not park adjusted, or what if-ed, or situationally influenced.
It has actully happened, in real life, and forever in the final evaluation of his quality, it will be a plus.
Since everyone has eliminated the first 3/4 of the season as having any matter in this MVP vote, and have narrowed down the teams where nobody on the very best teams, or non playoff teams can win one...then using their own criteria, the MVP is without a doubt C.C. Sabathia!
That is right, he fits all the criteria of the trivial MVP award that nearly everyone on this thread has decided(and what the voters typically do too). We already 'know' that it makes no difference what a player did in the first 3/4 of the season, so you can't hold the fact that Sabathia was not on the Brewers against him.
We also already know that the Brewers do not make the playoffs without him, and that is clear as day. We also know 'he' was 12-2.
We know that he 'saved the day' better than anyone. He was the Dark Knight rescuing his poor citizen Brewers and bringing them to the playoffs! How can you get more valuable than throwing a shutout on the very last day of the season to clinch a playoff birth?
So for every argument that the Howard fans have as reasoning for his MVP, Sabathia has the same points, but only bigger and louder!
P.S. The only thing is that Sabathia's contributions have been the complete opposite of trivial! He truly has played/pitched like not only an MVP for the Brewers, but like HOFer...and not because he had teammates that made him look better than he truly is(aahhm Howard).
Too bad he didn't throw shutout. ;-)
Yes, he too will be getting some MVP votes, 2 weeks ago when I mentioned that I was told I was crazy.
<< <i>Secondly and lastly just because you say Gordon was the best player on that team does not make it so, just because
you say something over and over does not make it fact.
IMO Joe D had a better season and if I look again i can make a case for Keller too. >>
I also said it wasn't important and let's all just agree it was DiMaggio. I said that because it isn't important; I wish I hadn't said it since it has created yet another avenue for avoiding my point. So I take it back, either DiMaggio or Keller, whichever one you pick, was the best Yankee that year. Now, why didn't that Yankee deserve the MVP?
<< <i>You can twist it anyway you want but you did say Gordon deserved it over Williams and not because some here feel Howard should win it. That is what you are saying know.
>>
Oh come on, you show me where I said that. I think Gordon was an absolutely horrible MVP choice and I have never once said anything that could possibly be interpreted otherwise.
And, finally, once we cleared up the confusion over "ought", no, you never said that Howard deserved the MVP. So if you think there are far better choices for MVP than Howard, then my posts aren't directed at you. I've been saying since this thread started that Howard probably would win the MVP; I think everyone here agrees on that. The debate is over exactly how dumb that makes the MVP voters; I'm arguing that it makes them extremely dumb, and I'm not sure exactly how dumb you think they would have to be to give Howard the MVP. Alternatively, maybe nobody is dumb because all we're doing is flipping coins to find a winner of a trivial "award". As a side debate, I'm also curious why Phillies fans aren't furious that Utley could single-handedly make the Phillies a contending team and get so little support for the MVP. But then, if we are all now in agreement that the MVP Award is nothing but a trivial distraction, then I guess the answers to those questions don't really matter - that the MVP Award was trivial was one of the original possible outcomes of this thread, and we appear to all have arrived there. Well, I imagine Dr. J is drooling in his tapioca and shouting "STOCHASTIC" at wary passers-by, but I think the rest of us all agree on that now. Nobody is offering any argument to the contrary, at least.
And jaxxr, just because things happen does not mean that reasonable people have to pretend that those things are important. I do not have to pretend that Joe Gordon is any better a player because sportswriters in 1942 were biased.
Stats of course help but stats don't always transform into who was the most valuable.
Again...because of these basic, simple, easy to understand concepts...Ryan Howard is a stone cold mortal lock for Most Valuable Player.
There has been enough written on here to show exactly how silly that rationale is, and I don't know how any grown man cannot recognize the trivialness in it after thinking it through.
anymore what you think with regards to Joe Gordon winning the MVP.
About 2 weeks ago in another thread you mentioned Dawson was the worst choice ever. (NOT opinion but fact)
Then I simply stated I felt Joe Gordon was a worse choice, you said that he actually deserved the award. (Or at least I think you did)
Anyway, you seem to love to answer a question with questions and analogies that only you, Hoops and Tom G seem to understand.
So please in simple terms so I know exactly what you are saying please tell me was Gordon the proper choice or not?
(at least in your opinion)
A simple Yes or no will suffice. I do not need any analogies with Howard or Pujols.
YES = he was the right choice
NO= he was not and Williams got hosed.
Then and only then will i at least for once understand what you are saying.
Steve
Why? because TED WILLIAMS should have IMO won it.
Steve
And Steve, from what perspective do you believe that Gordon was a "worse" MVP pick than Williams?
I answered that 2 pages ago I think, anyway I'll answer it again.
Williams won the triple crown that year, Gordon IMO was not even the most valuable player on his own team.
Steve
No hoop 'we' are not saying any such thing, you are.
Steve
<< <i>Steve you have flip flopped, were sarcastic, or asked a question when answering a question so many times that I have no idea
anymore what you think with regards to Joe Gordon winning the MVP. >>
That's what makes me so lovable!
<< <i>About 2 weeks ago in another thread you mentioned Dawson was the worst choice ever. (NOT opinion but fact) >>
Yes, I did. It is a fact that that is my opinion.
<< <i>Then I simply stated I felt Joe Gordon was a worse choice, you said that he actually deserved the award. (Or at least I think you did) >>
No, I didn't. I said one could rationalize Gordon's MVP much easier than one could rationalize Howard's MVP.
<< <i>So please in simple terms so I know exactly what you are saying please tell me was Gordon the proper choice or not? >>
No, Gordon was a truly terrible choice for the MVP; whenever there is one player who is so much better than every other player, like Williams and Pujols, they MUST get the MVP or the MVP becomes trivial.
<< <i>Williams won the triple crown that year, Gordon IMO was not even the most valuable player on his own team. >>
So that's the single exception to giving the MVP to a player on a playoff team, you give it to triple crown winners? Because other than the triple crown your answer is exactly analogous to this year: Pujols bestrides the National League like a Colossus he is so much better than everyone else, and Howard is not even close to being the best player on his team. Which I guess sums up why we can still be talking about this after 100 posts and I still don't understand where you stand.
So I'll ask a few simple questions:
If picking the MVP was up to you, who would you pick?
Who do you think was responsible for winning the most games for the Phillies this year?
Other than a triple crown, what else would lead you to pick a player from a non-playoff team for the MVP?
No, Gordon was a truly terrible choice for the MVP; whenever there is one player who is so much better than every other player, like Williams and Pujols, they MUST get the MVP or the MVP becomes trivial.
Geeze you mean that after all the verbiage you simply could have said the above?
So you were being sarcastic all along, who would have known?
And when I mentioned Gordon that day you could have simply said, "yeah that was a bad one too but I think Dawson's was a tad worse"
I could have then understood ya? Instead you went on and on with sarcastic reply and question after question?
Where I stand? All along I've simply said that it is possible for Howard to win the MVP. And FWIW Pujol's year is NOT as great as William's 1942 season. IMO
I've also said that Sabathia, Manny, and about 3 other guys have a shot.
Steve
a worse selection then Joe Gordon winning the award instead of a triple crown winning Ted Williams?
Steve
<< <i>Dallas you want us to believe that Dawson winning the MVP award over Ozzie Smith was
a worse selection then Joe Gordon winning the award instead of a triple crown winning Ted Williams?
Steve >>
Would be interesting to read the 1942 newspaper stories behind the selections at that time. I think Google is beginning to catalog and make available all the major newspaper pages for the past 100 years or so...not sure when that's going to happen. Those newspapers have always been available on microfilm - just a question of getting it on the net.
1987 Andre Dawson, Cubs 269
Ozzie Smith, Cardinals 193
Jack Clark, Cardinals 186
1942 Joe Gordon, Yankees 270
Ted Williams, Red Sox 249
Johnny Pesky, Red Sox 143
1942, pretty close, 1987 not too close, however, it's intresting that both seasons a teamate may have taken votes away from another. Perhaps that effect may hurt a Phillie this season.
The MVP awards are a majority opinion of many professional sportswriters who observe baseball on a daily basis, they can see events or situations not clearly available from boxscores, they often talk to other ballplayers and mangers, thay may gain insight, not easy for casual fans or stat calculators, to evaluate.
They are human and do get overly subjective at times, no matter how trival the award may be percieved to be, it is still a fine, positive accomplishment.
Pesky received 2 1st place votes that year that had they gone to William still leaves him short by 1 point.
However we (or at least I) have no idea how many 2nd 3rd etc votes Pesky took away from Williams.
Steve
<< <i>Dallas you want us to believe that Dawson winning the MVP award over Ozzie Smith was
a worse selection then Joe Gordon winning the award instead of a triple crown winning Ted Williams? >>
Yes. Andre Dawson was not among the best 20 players in the NL that year and he was not the most valuable player on his own team. Joe Gordon was, at worst, the fourth best player in the AL, and wherever he ranked the gap from Williams to Gordon not only has fewer people in it but is also smaller in absolute terms than the chasm above Dawson. But while Ozzie or Clark would have made fine MVP picks, the best player in the NL in 1987 was Tim Raines. All things considered, I think the voters blew it in 1987 worse than they did in any other year, as I've said.
And I'm more than a little puzzled why you are so quick to jump on this one. Williams team lost, badly, to the Yankees that year. I would think you would at least understand my frustration over Howard being an MVP candidate this year if Gordon bothers you this much. This is, after all, my point. Why does a far inferior player on a winning team get the MVP over the runaway best player in the league? And one who is not even the best player on his own team, at that? If they kept such stats and it turned out that Gordon had a great September, the analogy to 2008 would be essentially perfect. Would it matter to you if Gordon had the best September on the Yankees? I suspect he probably did, since that is the kind of inane thing that MVP voters obviously look at. Dawson's worst month, BTW, was September.
<< <i>The MVP awards are a majority opinion of many professional sportswriters who observe baseball on a daily basis, they can see events or situations not clearly available from boxscores, they often talk to other ballplayers and mangers, thay may gain insight, not easy for casual fans or stat calculators, to evaluate.
They are human and do get overly subjective at times, no matter how trival the award may be percieved to be, it is still a fine, positive accomplishment. >>
Or you could say that their job is to engage the reader in an antiquated and dieing buisness. As much as I have always liked the sports section, it has become such a small piece of sports media coverage. Deadlines and word count take precedence over thoughtfulness. Most people only finish half an article, sensationalism and exaggerations are higher priority and so much easier than insight
They need to come out with new articles every day on every sport. They are not paid to step back and spend time analyzing the past. They find their voice, find their story, and as soon as it's done, they move on to the next thing. Some of them are finished their baseball season more than a month ago to focus on football; some don't start paying attention until after the NBA Finals; some spent three weeks on a different continent this year; local stories are always in demand, while what happens nationally is largely ignored. Under those conditions it is extremely easy for them to miss things that are dedicated fans are far better at evaluating. Is that assesment wrong about the small group who have 'earned' the right to vote for MVP?
It is possible that the same screwiness that happened in 96 also happened in 42
The story has it, that one fellow left Ted and his triple crown stats, off the ballot completely, not even good enough for 10th place !
There are probably many times voters dont use the measurements some feel most proper, and many might disagree with their subjective evaluations. 1942 was perhaps the only time an award was "intentionally" meant to ignore a qulaified candidate, and probably the lone dishonest selection.
1939 - Dimaggio MVP - Williams 4th Yankees won pennant
1941 - Dimaggio MVP - Williams 2nd Yankees won pennant - Williams batted .406
1942 - Gordon MVP - Williams 2nd Yankees won pennant
1946 - Williams MVP Red Sox won pennant
1947 - Dimaggio MVP Williams won TRIPLE CROWN 2nd in vote
1949 - Williams MVP Rizzuto 2nd Vern Stephens 7th Yankees won pennant
1950 - Rizzuto MVP Yankees won pennant
It was 1947 when Dimaggio beat Williams in the vote 202-201 that one writer (Mel Webb - a Boston writer) left Williams completely off the ballot. However, it should be noted that three writers left Dimaggio off the ballot and three others had him eighth or lower.
The writers in their defense claimed that it was not just Williams who compiled great numbers but the entire Boston team. Despite all of their runs scored they never won. They figured since they never won that the numbers had nothing to do with winning or losing.
In 1949 when Red Sox shortstop Vern Stephens hit 39 homeruns and drove in 159 runs with 101 walks and a .290 batting average he finished 7th in the voting. In 1950 Stephens hit .295 with 30 homers and 144 runs batted in with 125 runs scored. He finished way down in the voting.
He also hit 400 and did not win it as well. 1941
Ya think the writers had it in for him?
Steve
Sincerely,
Steve Carlton
11 HR and 32 RBI
It is going to be an intersting vote that is for sure.
Manny, Sabathia and Pujols will all be getting some big votes.
I also read today that Brad Lidge won he Phillies MVP award, even though closing is a BS pos.
(eyeroll)
Steve
Not sure if he got the MVP or not?
The closer position is a BS position the way it is currently used.
You Lidge example also shows exactly why narrowing down selecting the MVP to only a few teams who just make the playoffs...renders it trivial. That is a judgement of teammates and not player value.
That dope DRJ never understood this, and when I brought up the bullpen he showed how much of a simpleton he was by laughing it off.
If it is true that Lidge did win the Phillies MVP, it just exemplifies what Dallas and I have been saying all along about Howard. Howard is at best the third most valuable on his own team. RBI total or not doesn't change that.
Williams won the MVP in 1946, although it was not his best year, because the Red Sox won the pennant. He also won the award in 1949 because the Yankees best candidate was Rizzuto and it would have been hard to justify that all of his "intangibles" equalled Ted's superior batting. If the writers definately had it in for Ted, they would have voted Stephens the MVP in 1949 when he drove in 159 runs.
The voting in the 1940's is tough to figure out certainly, and as jaxxr mentioned the writer's at the time are privy to some information we may not recognize today.
The most obvious answer to me is that a majority of writers liked to pick the best player from the pennant winning team.
The Mets blew 30 saves this past year, had they won just 2 of those games they would be
still playing. I wonder just how many of those blown saves were in the 9th inning?
I also wonder what is an average amount a team should have within the course of a year?
Teams with a strong closer win those games.
Steve
<< <i>If you look at the overall numbers I would vote for Pujols. Howard struck out 199 times and Pujols struck out only 54 times. Pujols final average was a staggering 106 points better! >>
So will the writers.
Shane
You won't get an argument from me Pujols could have won it every year he has played.
Pujols is too steady, guys that made a loud splash may get some serious votes.
Manny, Sabathia and Howard are going to get some votes.
Pujols deserves it as much as those guys, I just don't see it happening.
He may get just about every second place vote and win it that way.
Steve
Thanks for the correction, I always thought it was 10, 9 .....
By using 14, 9..... they make it hard for a guy on many 2nd place ballots ever wins it?
Steve
<< <i>Winpitcher,
The closer position is a BS position the way it is currently used.
You Lidge example also shows exactly why narrowing down selecting the MVP to only a few teams who just make the playoffs...renders it trivial. That is a judgement of teammates and not player value.
That dope DRJ never understood this, and when I brought up the bullpen he showed how much of a simpleton he was by laughing it off.
If it is true that Lidge did win the Phillies MVP, it just exemplifies what Dallas and I have been saying all along about Howard. Howard is at best the third most valuable on his own team. RBI total or not doesn't change that. >>
Hoopster,
You have already been certified a raving lunatic.
You still cannot get it through your thick skull that leading the majors in both HR and RBI is a major accomplishment and something "average" players do not accomplish.
Your anti Howard rhetoric (racism?) is really disturbing.