MVPeavy?

[tearforamariner]

Normally I wouldn't advocate giving a pitcher the MVP, but this year seems awfully weak for MVP candidates. To me, the two major candidate in the NL play for the team with the worst record. The Padres, on the other hand, or a contender, and this is due a large part to the outstanding pitching of inevitable triple crown champion Jake Peavy. Should Peavy win the MVP this year?

[geezer]

With Fielder, Holliday, Rollins, and Wright leading the way, honestly not likely he will finish in the Top 5, but he can be in the Top 10 in MVP voting.

[Zagi-CRO]

Peavy deserves the MVP if the Padres win the division title.
Although, I think Matt Holliday should win - he leads the NL in AVG .340, RBIs 128, H 204 and doubles 48.

[-Kyle-]

With Fielder, Holliday, Rollins, and Wright leading the way, honestly not likely he will finish in the Top 5, but he can be in the Top 10 in MVP voting.

Don't forget Hanley, who is better than Rollins, Holliday, and Fielder...and maybe Wright.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Not this year. David Wright is a pretty clear choice, to me. Peavy is the Most Valuable Padre, no contest, and should walk away with the CYA handily, but he's about tenth among all NL players in total value.

[KCGHOST]

Too many position players are having great years for Peavey to deserve this award. You would have to get into a very narrow mindset to give the award to him.

[geezer]

Don't forget Hanley, who is better than Rollins, Holliday, and Fielder...and maybe Wright.

And the Marlins are in the cellar, a case for Hanley to be Top 10, yes, to win the award, not this year.

[Old Sweater]

And the Marlins are in the cellar, a case for Hanley to be Top 10, yes, to win the award, not this year.

That shouldn't matter a bit to a writer who thinks that Hanley helped his team win more games then the other candidates for the award.

This is from about a week ago and Holliday has been real hot against the Dodgers in this current 4 game series. I borrowed the Hanley and Wright stats and went through gamelogs for Holliday when another poster was tooting Hanleys horn.


When Wright does not play or goes hitless, the Mets are 17-16.

When Ramirez does not play or goes hitless, the Marlins are 10-23.


Rockies record when Holliday go's hitlless 5-19

Rockies record 75-69/ when Holliday starts or appears 75-66

Go ahead hits for Holliday = 22



In last nights game the Rockies announcers said the Rockies have only lost 4 games when Holliday hit a homer, I forget the win total but Holliday has 35 homers with 3 or 4 multi homer games this year so it is right at 24 and 4. When Holliday has had 2 hits in a game was also an impressive number that I forget. That is the stuff you look for, not if the team makes the playoffs. IMO the writers need to brush up on the criteria for the MVP and quit favoring the big city large market teams.

[Erik Bedard]

Peavy deserves the MVP if the Padres win the division title.
Although, I think Matt Holliday should win - he leads the NL in AVG .340, RBIs 128, H 204 and doubles 48.

Why should where the Padres finish have any impact on Peavy's value? This question is directed ONLY to Zagi-CRO, because I don't want to get into another big argument on this.

Also, you just cited a bunch of either park-affected or team-dependent stats when making your case for Holliday. Coors is not the hitter's paradise it once was, but when combining the large dimensions with the thin air, you're going to see a ton of doubles, and a lot more base hits than at a neutral park. These will often lead to more RBIs, especially with a good lineup around you.

Oh, and as for the question at hand, Peavy is about third on my list right now, definitely behind Ramirez and Wright, about the same as Holliday, Fielder, and Utley, and ahead of Rollins.

[skyking162]

I have a question, and it might sound sarcastic because I'm sure it's been asked in a sarcastic way many times before. But I'm asking a serious question:

If you believe that the MVP discussion involves a team context -- players that help their teams sneak into the playoffs are valuable while those playing for last place teams are not -- how do you know how far to slide a player like Hanley Ramirez down your MVP ballot. To me, this view of the MVP only allows certain players into the discussion. Assuming Hanley's the best player in the NL (I don't agree, necessarily) and you DQ him from winning the MVP, how can he rank 7th, say, on an MVP ballot?

Thanks.

[Zagi-CRO]

Why should where the Padres finish have any impact on Peavy's value? This question is directed ONLY to Zagi-CRO, because I don't want to get into another big argument on this.

Also, you just cited a bunch of either park-affected or team-dependent stats when making your case for Holliday. Coors is not the hitter's paradise it once was, but when combining the large dimensions with the thin air, you're going to see a ton of doubles, and a lot more base hits than at a neutral park. These will often lead to more RBIs, especially with a good lineup around you.

Oh, and as for the question at hand, Peavy is about third on my list right now, definitely behind Ramirez and Wright, about the same as Holliday, Fielder, and Utley, and ahead of Rollins.

MVP discussion involves a team context, that's why I'll choose Peavy.
If you have two similar players, both with excellent stats, and a player A help his team to win the title while a player B dont do that, who is your choice. player A or B ?
I'll always pick a player A /in this case Peavy vs. Hanley Ramirez/
Let say, both are the MVP but the player A is the Most MVP!!

On croatian, we use to say for the player B:
Veliki promet-mala zarada :lookitup
/I dont know how to translate it.../
.... don't drink and drive, just smoke and fly ... :laugh

[Erik Bedard]

MVP discussion involves a team context, that's why I'll choose Peavy.
If you have two similar players, both with excellent stats, and a player A help his team to win the title while a player B dont do that, who is your choice. player A or B ?
I'll always pick a player A /in this case Peavy vs. Hanley Ramirez/
Let say, both are the MVP but the player A is the Most MVP!!

On croatian, we use to say for the player B:
Veliki promet-mala zarada :lookitup
/I dont know how to translate it.../
.... don't drink and drive, just smoke and fly ... :laugh

That argument only has any validity if the teams (and players) are exactly the same.

[AutographCollector]

Jake Peavy is a pitcher, pitchers win Cy Young Awards, not MVP's.
Give the MVP award to Wright.
:waving

[tearforamariner]

Jake Peavy is a pitcher, pitchers win Cy Young Awards, not MVP's.
Give the MVP award to Wright.
:waving

Tell that to Rollie Fingers, Willie Hernandez, Roger Clemens, and Dennis Eckersley.

[Westlake]

In last nights game the Rockies announcers said the Rockies have only lost 4 games when Holliday hit a homer, I forget the win total but Holliday has 35 homers with 3 or 4 multi homer games this year so it is right at 24 and 4. When Holliday has had 2 hits in a game was also an impressive number that I forget. That is the stuff you look for, not if the team makes the playoffs. IMO the writers need to brush up on the criteria for the MVP and quit favoring the big city large market teams.

There is no criteria, what do you want them to brush up on? Also, if they really all favored large market teams, why did Morneau win over Jeter and Ortiz last year? Or Tejada in Oakland, Giambi in Oakland, Pudge in Texas, A-Rod in Texas, Gonzalez in Texas, Larkin in Cincinnati, Bagwell in Houston, ect....

[Captain Cold Nose]

There is no criteria, what do you want them to brush up on? Also, if they really all favored large market teams, why did Morneau win over Jeter and Ortiz last year? Or Tejada in Oakland, Giambi in Oakland, Pudge in Texas, A-Rod in Texas, Gonzalez in Texas, Larkin in Cincinnati, Bagwell in Houston, ect....

That's one area without historical bias, probably because the voters are from across the country. HOF voting is the same way, for the most part, now.

[AutographCollector]

Tell that to Rollie Fingers, Willie Hernandez, Roger Clemens, and Dennis Eckersley.

There had to have been a position player who hit well and fielded well throgh those yrs.

[brett]

I have a question, and it might sound sarcastic because I'm sure it's been asked in a sarcastic way many times before. But I'm asking a serious question:

If you believe that the MVP discussion involves a team context -- players that help their teams sneak into the playoffs are valuable while those playing for last place teams are not -- how do you know how far to slide a player like Hanley Ramirez down your MVP ballot. To me, this view of the MVP only allows certain players into the discussion. Assuming Hanley's the best player in the NL (I don't agree, necessarily) and you DQ him from winning the MVP, how can he rank 7th, say, on an MVP ballot?

Thanks.


The problem I have with players on a very poor team is that their team has been out of the race for a long time. Their games are less meaningful.

The same could even be true of a team that clinches with 3 weeks to go.

Ramirez main issue for me is what kind of fielder he really is.

If he is an average SS (which he isn't) he would probably be my MVP even on a last place team.

Wright, Holliday and Rollins are close, and I could consider putting Peavy ahead of them. He is right in the mix in terms of value. If Peavy had been a real big inning guy (260+) he could have won it but with 210-220 he should not.

I don't agree that there have been a lot of great seasons this year. I think there have been a lot of real good one's and really only Hanley is having an historically great offensive season for his position.

[brett]

Why should where the Padres finish have any impact on Peavy's value? This question is directed ONLY to Zagi-CRO, because I don't want to get into another big argument on this.



It shouldn't. What does matter is that they are still playing important games with 2 weeks to go.

[brett]

There is no criteria, what do you want them to brush up on? Also, if they really all favored large market teams, why did Morneau win over Jeter and Ortiz last year? Or Tejada in Oakland, Giambi in Oakland, Pudge in Texas, A-Rod in Texas, Gonzalez in Texas, Larkin in Cincinnati, Bagwell in Houston, ect....

I read that the reason Morneau won was because some voters actually got him confused with Mauer. Advantage-small market.

By the way, Mauer and Jeter were my top 2 choices.

[brett]

I personally don't care who wins the MVP much anymore. It has to be somewhat subjective. I just don't want a BAD choice like Morneau was last year.

There are 8 guys with OPS+ between 147 and 166 all with different complimentary stats-games played, position, steals

You eliminate Pujols and fielder because they are right in the middle, and bring the least extra. Both would need to dominate with the bat to win.

Jones and Utley both missed a significant number of games.

That leaves Wright, Cabrera, Holliday and Ramirez, and the Rollins factor, and Peavy who quite simply needed 260+ innings to match those guys on value.

Rollins is the wild card with the voters. He seems to be the media pick of the moment. He is a better fielder and has played more meaningful games than Ramirez.

I think Wright knocks off Cabrera pretty clearly.

Holliday fades a little too. He is a very good baserunner outside of the stats and a good fielder for his position, and has kept his team playing meaningful games but that's about it.

So I have Wright, Ramirez and Rollins. Rollins is just not a great offensive force. I have to move him down.

So for me it really is between Wright and Ramirez.

[skyking162]

The problem I have with players on a very poor team is that their team has been out of the race for a long time. Their games are less meaningful.

So you're advocating a sliding scale -- the more meaningless games a player plays in, the more you dock him credit? It would possible for a player on a last-place team to win the MVP if he's far enough ahead of the pack in performance and your penalty for meaningless games isn't extremely harsh? That seems logically consistent. Reminds me of "Playoff Probability Added" -- judging each player for how his performance affects the outcomes of games and how the outcomes of those games affect the playoff picture.

[brett]

So you're advocating a sliding scale -- the more meaningless games a player plays in, the more you dock him credit? It would possible for a player on a last-place team to win the MVP if he's far enough ahead of the pack in performance and your penalty for meaningless games isn't extremely harsh? That seems logically consistent. Reminds me of "Playoff Probability Added" -- judging each player for how his performance affects the outcomes of games and how the outcomes of those games affect the playoff picture.


Yes basically. If a last place team is technically eliminated with 40 games to go, I would give the player full credit for 122 games, and maybe half credit for his production for the last 40 games. With 4 playoff teams, it is unlikely that a team will clinch with 20 to go though

[Neilios]

Normally I wouldn't advocate giving a pitcher the MVP, but this year seems awfully weak for MVP candidates.

Quite the contrary, I think. This year there seems to be so many deserving candidates that it has warranted multiple discussion threads debating this very topic with nearly a dozen players' names tossed around--all deservingly. As an American League homer, it certainly is more exciting on the NL side than everybody's obvious choice over here.

I'm still sticking with Holliday, regardless of his home park. Keep in mind, visiting opponents crush the ball just as much, and yet the Rockies still have an outside shot at the playoffs with just over a week to go.

[-Kyle-]

Think about what you guys are doing: You are not considering a player for the MVP because how the rest of his team is doing. If you were a doctor at a bad hospital and a great doc, is it your fault that the people around you are lazy and can never be convinced, so you are not as good doctor? David Wright is having a great year with a 2 OPS+ point lead, and Hanley is stealing more bases and playing a harder position not as well. I really think it is a wash, but to eliminate him is quite ridiculous.

[-Kyle-]

As an American League homer, it certainly is more exciting on the NL side than everybody's obvious choice over here.

You mean A-Rod, not Ordonez right?