|
Post by klawrencio79 on Nov 15, 2019 0:06:34 GMT
Bellinger MVP pretty easily. Rendon only 1 first place and 1 second place vote. Freddie Freeman got a 2nd place vote. Surprised Rendon didn't a little more love, but not surprised with Bellinger. Guy was an absolute monster.
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Nov 15, 2019 0:23:31 GMT
Verlander is 36 and has 225 wins. Gerrit Cole is 29 and has 94 wins. I don’t see either of them getting to 300. Nope but Verlander essentially assured himself of being a first ballot HOFer. 2 Cy youngs, 1 mvp, 1 ROY, 3 no hitters, top five Cy Young 7 times, 8 all star games, great winning percentage. His 3.33 ERA is low considering guys who get in now like Mussina and Morris. As long as World Series stats aren't taken into consideration, Verlander is a lock. Obviously, Verlander is going in for sure, but how a guy performs in October should be considered more important than how he performs in May, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Nov 15, 2019 0:26:00 GMT
Bellinger MVP pretty easily. Rendon only 1 first place and 1 second place vote. Freddie Freeman got a 2nd place vote. Surprised Rendon didn't a little more love, but not surprised with Bellinger. Guy was an absolute monster. Agree, I think Bellinger is the right choice, but I thought Rendon deserved more than one first place vote.
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Nov 15, 2019 1:45:02 GMT
Surprised Rendon didn't a little more love, but not surprised with Bellinger. Guy was an absolute monster. Agree, I think Bellinger is the right choice, but I thought Rendon deserved more than one first place vote. who voting for josh donaldson???!
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 15, 2019 13:32:06 GMT
Mike Trout. The best keeps getting better. They need to change the name of the award. He's the best player in baseball, no question. But MVP? They went 72-90. "Good thing Trout's here, otherwise we would've finished in last place in the division instead of second to last." I don't get it. Again, he's the best in the business, but change the name. Most Outstanding Player, like the NCAA tournament. Maybe it's a corporate award. He's literally the most valuable player because nobody would show up to watch Angels games if he wasn't there.
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Nov 15, 2019 13:43:47 GMT
Mike Trout. The best keeps getting better. They need to change the name of the award. He's the best player in baseball, no question. But MVP? They went 72-90. "Good thing Trout's here, otherwise we would've finished in last place in the division instead of second to last." I don't get it. Again, he's the best in the business, but change the name. Most Outstanding Player, like the NCAA tournament. Maybe it's a corporate award. He's literally the most valuable player because nobody would show up to watch Angels games if he wasn't there. In all of sports, beyond DC Fan’s umpteenth post about the Patriots, beyond the MLB steroid issues, this is the one argument I’m least on board with. Yes, the Angels lost a million games and haven’t been competitive during Trout’s entire tenure there, but this isn’t the NBA where one LeBron James can take 11 other scrubs to a title. He’s one guy in the field and at the plate among a roster of 24 other guys. He doesn’t pitch. He’s not their incompetent GM. He’s not a there-5-years-too-long Mike Scioscia. He’s the best player in the game by a comfortable margin who can still only do so much. If the Angels were 35 games out with him they’d be 50 games out without him. Statistically he plays at a level that you can mention him in the same breath as Mantle, DiMaggio, Foxx, Musial, Mays and not be laughed at, and plays it against better athletic competition than those guys ever did in a longer season with more travel. He missed the last 3 weeks of the season and STILL had a higher WAR than Bregman. If Bregman missed the last 3 weeks the Astros would still make it to the World Series, so how valuable can HE be? Rey, I think you are one of the best and smartest posters here but I couldn’t disagree with you more on this.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 15, 2019 14:02:40 GMT
They need to change the name of the award. He's the best player in baseball, no question. But MVP? They went 72-90. "Good thing Trout's here, otherwise we would've finished in last place in the division instead of second to last." I don't get it. Again, he's the best in the business, but change the name. Most Outstanding Player, like the NCAA tournament. Maybe it's a corporate award. He's literally the most valuable player because nobody would show up to watch Angels games if he wasn't there. In all of sports, beyond DC Fan’s umpteenth post about the Patriots, beyond the MLB steroid issues, this is the one argument I’m least on board with. Yes, the Angels lost a million games and haven’t been competitive during Trout’s entire tenure there, but this isn’t the NBA where one LeBron James can take 11 other scrubs to a title. He’s one guy in the field and at the plate among a roster of 24 other guys. He doesn’t pitch. He’s not their incompetent GM. He’s not a there-5-years-too-long Mike Scioscia. He’s the best player in the game by a comfortable margin who can still only do so much. If the Angels were 35 games out with him they’d be 50 games out without him. Statistically he plays at a level that you can mention him in the same breath as Mantle, DiMaggio, Foxx, Musial, Mays and not be laughed at, and plays it against better athletic competition than those guys ever did in a longer season with more travel. He missed the last 3 weeks of the season and STILL had a higher WAR than Bregman. If Bregman missed the last 3 weeks the Astros would still make it to the World Series, so how valuable can HE be? Rey, I think you are one of the best and smartest posters here but I couldn’t disagree with you more on this. Thanks, I respect your opinion as well, and I know you've been a Trout advocate for some time, that's why I quoted you to start this conversation. I hear what you're saying. And ultimately I guess I do understand why the voters went this way, because baseball is about numbers. It's different than any other team sport because your stars have a limited number of opportunities to contribute. Basketball and hockey players can play as many minutes as they want, at both ends of the floor. Football players are out there for roughly half of the game. Hitters only get a handful of opportunities to help their team win in any given game. Even defensively, you only have an opportunity for so many putouts. So if Trout is doing literally everything he can to help the team win, and stats prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, wins and losses shouldn't matter. Thinking about it that way (thanks to your perspective), baseball might have the most reasonable system of deciding individual accolades each season of all team sports.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Nov 15, 2019 14:18:11 GMT
In all of sports, beyond DC Fan’s umpteenth post about the Patriots, beyond the MLB steroid issues, this is the one argument I’m least on board with. Yes, the Angels lost a million games and haven’t been competitive during Trout’s entire tenure there, but this isn’t the NBA where one LeBron James can take 11 other scrubs to a title. He’s one guy in the field and at the plate among a roster of 24 other guys. He doesn’t pitch. He’s not their incompetent GM. He’s not a there-5-years-too-long Mike Scioscia. He’s the best player in the game by a comfortable margin who can still only do so much. If the Angels were 35 games out with him they’d be 50 games out without him. Statistically he plays at a level that you can mention him in the same breath as Mantle, DiMaggio, Foxx, Musial, Mays and not be laughed at, and plays it against better athletic competition than those guys ever did in a longer season with more travel. He missed the last 3 weeks of the season and STILL had a higher WAR than Bregman. If Bregman missed the last 3 weeks the Astros would still make it to the World Series, so how valuable can HE be? Rey, I think you are one of the best and smartest posters here but I couldn’t disagree with you more on this. Thanks, I respect your opinion as well, and I know you've been a Trout advocate for some time, that's why I quoted you to start this conversation. I hear what you're saying. And ultimately I guess I do understand why the voters went this way, because baseball is about numbers. It's different than any other team sport because your stars have a limited number of opportunities to contribute. Basketball and hockey players can play as many minutes as they want, at both ends of the floor. Football players are out there for roughly half of the game. Hitters only get a handful of opportunities to help their team win in any given game. Even defensively, you only have an opportunity for so many putouts. So if Trout is doing literally everything he can to help the team win, and stats prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, wins and losses shouldn't matter. Thinking about it that way (thanks to your perspective), baseball might have the most reasonable system of deciding individual accolades each season of all team sports. Look at this. Reasonable people disagreeing but respecting other people's views and even validating them. It's up to us guys, we can save this world by the sheer fact that we're not unbridled dickheads!
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Nov 15, 2019 15:50:07 GMT
Nope but Verlander essentially assured himself of being a first ballot HOFer. 2 Cy youngs, 1 mvp, 1 ROY, 3 no hitters, top five Cy Young 7 times, 8 all star games, great winning percentage. His 3.33 ERA is low considering guys who get in now like Mussina and Morris. As long as World Series stats aren't taken into consideration, Verlander is a lock. Obviously, Verlander is going in for sure, but how a guy performs in October should be considered more important than how he performs in May, but that's just me. If that was the case, Bumgardner would be going in.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Nov 15, 2019 16:13:41 GMT
Nope but Verlander essentially assured himself of being a first ballot HOFer. 2 Cy youngs, 1 mvp, 1 ROY, 3 no hitters, top five Cy Young 7 times, 8 all star games, great winning percentage. His 3.33 ERA is low considering guys who get in now like Mussina and Morris. As long as World Series stats aren't taken into consideration, Verlander is a lock. Obviously, Verlander is going in for sure, but how a guy performs in October should be considered more important than how he performs in May, but that's just me. For me, a guy's postseason performance should only serve to help someone who may be borderline, rather than knocking down someone who should be in regardless, or knocking a borderline guy off the ballot. For instance, Curt Schilling had a great career worthy of the HOF anyway, but he was as good a postseason pitcher as I've ever seen so that should be taken into consideration as a plus for him. If he were terrible in the postseason, then that shouldn't be used as a case against him being in. Verlander should be in regardless too, but I don't think his awful WS performances over the years should serve to knock him down. Same with someone like Kershaw who has put up one of the best 7-year stretches the game has ever seen, but has been pretty mediocre in the postseason. He shouldn't be held out, or have to wait extra years because of that. Just my two cents. I concede that is not a universally held belief.
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Nov 15, 2019 16:18:56 GMT
As long as World Series stats aren't taken into consideration, Verlander is a lock. Obviously, Verlander is going in for sure, but how a guy performs in October should be considered more important than how he performs in May, but that's just me. For me, a guy's postseason performance should only serve to help someone who may be borderline, rather than knocking down someone who should be in regardless, or knocking a borderline guy off the ballot. For instance, Curt Schilling had a great career worthy of the HOF anyway, but he was as good a postseason pitcher as I've ever seen so that should be taken into consideration as a plus for him. If he were terrible in the postseason, then that shouldn't be used as a case against him being in. Verlander should be in regardless too, but I don't think his awful WS performances over the years should serve to knock him down. Same with someone like Kershaw who has put up one of the best 7-year stretches the game has ever seen, but has been pretty mediocre in the postseason. He shouldn't be held out, or have to wait extra years because of that. Just my two cents. I concede that is not a universally held belief. I think for Schilling, his career was boarderline HOF at best but possibly his post season stats may put him over. But if this is the case, do we take away points then for someone like Kershaw?
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Nov 15, 2019 16:24:55 GMT
For me, a guy's postseason performance should only serve to help someone who may be borderline, rather than knocking down someone who should be in regardless, or knocking a borderline guy off the ballot. For instance, Curt Schilling had a great career worthy of the HOF anyway, but he was as good a postseason pitcher as I've ever seen so that should be taken into consideration as a plus for him. If he were terrible in the postseason, then that shouldn't be used as a case against him being in. Verlander should be in regardless too, but I don't think his awful WS performances over the years should serve to knock him down. Same with someone like Kershaw who has put up one of the best 7-year stretches the game has ever seen, but has been pretty mediocre in the postseason. He shouldn't be held out, or have to wait extra years because of that. Just my two cents. I concede that is not a universally held belief. I think for Schilling, his career was boarderline HOF at best but possibly his post season stats may put him over. But if this is the case, do we take away points then for someone like Kershaw? No. It only serves to help, it doesn't serve to decrease. I certainly get the argument that someone like Kershaw should lose points or whatever due to his postseason mishaps, but that's just not my personal opinion that it shouldn't. Plus, Kershaw should be in regardless so maybe someone like Johan Santana would be a better test case.
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Nov 15, 2019 16:28:30 GMT
I’m on the fence about Schilling regarding the HOF, though I’ll concede that he’ll probably get in some day. I think he had some incredibly high peaks, and he was money in the post season. In the post season he was David Ortiz, Joe Montana, Michael Jordan, just clutch and dominant when it was needed the most. He just didn’t have enough of those seasons. But he’ll probably get in and I’d be more ok with his enshrinement than I was with Mussina’s
By the way, knowing what kind of guy Schilling is off the field, is there any player more cringe-worthy that you defend not including murderers like Ray Lewis and OJ? It makes me ill saying anything good about this walking talking trash.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 15, 2019 16:40:38 GMT
I think for Schilling, his career was boarderline HOF at best but possibly his post season stats may put him over. But if this is the case, do we take away points then for someone like Kershaw? No. It only serves to help, it doesn't serve to decrease. I certainly get the argument that someone like Kershaw should lose points or whatever due to his postseason mishaps, but that's just not my personal opinion. Plus, Kershaw should be in regardless so maybe someone like Johan Santana would be a better test case. I agree with this across all of sports. Postseason should help bolster your HOF case, but it shouldn't be used against you. If your career numbers are borderline but you took it to another level in the playoffs, it should be noted. Conversely, if you were historically great throughout your entire career, you shouldn't be punished for not excelling in the postseason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 19:17:23 GMT
When do people vote on the MVP? Any chance Bregman got penalized by voters because of the cheating accusation allowing Trout to get it again?
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Nov 15, 2019 19:27:29 GMT
When do people vote on the MVP? Any chance Bregman got penalized by voters because of the cheating accusation allowing Trout to get it again? It's all done right at the very end of the season, before the playoffs start.
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Nov 15, 2019 19:31:10 GMT
I think for Schilling, his career was boarderline HOF at best but possibly his post season stats may put him over. But if this is the case, do we take away points then for someone like Kershaw? No. It only serves to help, it doesn't serve to decrease. I certainly get the argument that someone like Kershaw should lose points or whatever due to his postseason mishaps, but that's just not my personal opinion that it shouldn't. Plus, Kershaw should be in regardless so maybe someone like Johan Santana would be a better test case. Yup, because if it served against you, Verlander might get in on his tenth try instead of his first, lol. I think it helped someone like Morris too, although he wasn't always great in post season, they only remember the great starts.
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Nov 15, 2019 19:42:28 GMT
As long as World Series stats aren't taken into consideration, Verlander is a lock. Obviously, Verlander is going in for sure, but how a guy performs in October should be considered more important than how he performs in May, but that's just me. If that was the case, Bumgardner would be going in. Maybe he should.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2019 4:51:12 GMT
Mike Trout. The best keeps getting better. They need to change the name of the award. He's the best player in baseball, no question. But MVP? They went 72-90. "Good thing Trout's here, otherwise we would've finished in last place in the division instead of second to last." I don't get it. Again, he's the best in the business, but change the name. Most Outstanding Player, like the NCAA tournament. Maybe it's a corporate award. He's literally the most valuable player because nobody would show up to watch Angels games if he wasn't there. I agree with this completely. I have an issue when the MVP gets awarded to somebody on a sub .500 team. At least try to give it to somebody that made enough of an impact on that team to get them in the playoff race. They don't have to be a playoff team per say but at least be somebody that was competing for a spot as I don't think it should be an award given to the best player on the best team. The term Valuable is in there for a reason. Otherwise as Rey said, just rename it to most outstanding or just player of the year. Unless that player somehow broke records that it becomes impossible to ignore him than it should go to somebody who made enough of an impact to get his team into contention. I feel the same way when a starting pitcher wins MVP. They have their own award for a reason. It's hard to convince me that a guy who plays in 35 games tops of a 162 game season was the most valuable player of the year. Even if they went 35-0 in those starts it means that team would have had to win like 55 other games where he wasn't even involved in to be in the playoff race.
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Nov 18, 2019 18:54:52 GMT
If that was the case, Bumgardner would be going in. Maybe he should..... Right now Bum would be one and done on the ballot. He would need to put up a few amazing seasons the rest of his career to have the remotest shot.
|
|