BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: BBWAA: NL MVP: It’s Unanimous: Cardinals’ Albert Pujols Wins Again

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

BBWAA: NL MVP: It’s Unanimous: Cardinals’ Albert Pujols Wins Again

St. Louis Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols was a unanimous choice in winning the National League Most Valuable Player Award for the second consecutive season and the third time in his career.

Pujols was listed first on all 32 ballots submitted by two writers in each league city to score a perfect total of 448 points, based on the tabulation system that rewards 14 points for first place, nine for second, eight for third and on down to one for 10th.

He became the sixth NL player to win the award by a unanimous vote, joining Orlando Cepeda (1967), Mike Schmidt (1980), Jeff Bagwell (1994), Ken Caminiti (1996) and Barry Bonds (2002). There have been nine unanimous winners in the American League – Hank Greenberg (1935), Al Rosen (1953), Mickey Mantle (1956), Frank Robinson (1966), Denny McLain (1968), Reggie Jackson (1973), Jose Canseco (1988), Frank Thomas (1993) and Ken Griffey, Jr. (1997).

Florida Marlins shortstop Hanley Ramirez, who won the batting title (.342) and had 24 home runs and 106 RBI, was second in the voting with 233 points. First basemen Ryan Howard of the Philadelphia Phillies and Price Fielder of the Milwaukee Brewers, who tied for the league lead in RBI with 141 apiece, finished third and fourth, respectively. Howard (.279, 45 HR, 108 R) totaled 217 points and Fielder (.299, 46 HR, 110 BB) 203. In all, 30 players received votes, but only Pujols, Ramirez and Fielder were on every ballot.

Repoz Posted: November 24, 2009 at 01:55 PM | 143 comment(s)
Related News: General

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

1. Mark Armour Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:01 PM (#3395793)

Whoever put Derrek Lee second should have his vote taken away.

2. Dock Ellis on Acid

Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:03 PM (#3395795)

Who the hell voted for Jeremy Affeldt?

3. Juan V has had a good baseball year Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:04 PM (#3395796)

I'm so outraged that I have nothing to be outraged about!

4. Gamingboy Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:05 PM (#3395798)

I'm so outraged that I have nothing to be outraged about!

Agreed!!!!

5. DCA Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:06 PM (#3395799)

Who the hell voted for Jeremy Affeldt?

One SF writer right when the season ended said he'd vote Affeldt 10th. Guess he really did. It's no worse than voting Street 9th and Hawpe 10th, as some Denver writer probably did.

6. Best Regards, Larry Mahnken Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:06 PM (#3395800)

This is fu@king BULLSH|T.

7. JJ1986 Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:06 PM (#3395801)

I'm so outraged that I have nothing to be outraged about!

Zimmerman is way too low!!

8. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:07 PM (#3395802)

My favorite is Yunel Escobar: one voter believed he was the 5th most valuable player in the NL this year, while not one of his 31 colleagues thought Escobar belonged even in the top ten.

9. DCW3 Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:09 PM (#3395806)

It's kind of funny to look at how Ryan Braun's done in the voting the last couple years:

2008: 663 PAs, .285/.335/.553, 14 SB, 106 RBIs. Finishes 3rd in the MVP vote.
2009: 708 PAs, .320/.386/.551, 20 SB, 114 RBIs. Only NL player to have 200 hits. But the Brewers' pitching staff imploded, so he finishes 11th.

10. Doug's Hopkin off the band wagon Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:11 PM (#3395809)

Who the hell voted for Jeremy Affeldt?

One SF writer

Well, to be fair, only Giants, Cardinals, and Phillies win NL MVPs this decade. Everyone knows that.

11. Eric J Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:13 PM (#3395813)

I'm so outraged that I have nothing to be outraged about!

Well, Utley finished behind Howard. Again. But this is more of a minor irritation, at least until Utley is on the Hall of Fame ballot and Buster Olney whines about how he never finished in the top 5 of an MVP vote.

12. SABRJoe Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:14 PM (#3395815)

Interesting (to me, at least) that both Carpenter and Wainwright got more points than Lincecum. You'd think not only would Carpenter and Wainwright split votes, but lose ground in argument sake given that their teammate was unanimous. Kung-Fu Panda was the only other Giant to get votes and even he finished higher than the two-time Cy Young winner.

13. puck Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:16 PM (#3395818)

It's no worse than voting Street 9th and Hawpe 10th, as some Denver writer probably did.

It wasn't Ringolsby, fwiw. The only Rockies player he voted for was Tulo (one of Tulo's 3 second-place votes).

I wonder who the other Denver voter was. I think Patrick Saunders of the Post had a vote in the Cy Young.

14. Joshua Gibsons Ruth (Voxter) Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:17 PM (#3395821)

This is the worst decision ever.

15. lar @ wezen-ball Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:17 PM (#3395822)

I was going to point out the same thing, SABRJoe. They finished 14th and 15th, for goodness sake.

But not a lone vote for Javier Vazquez.

16. phredbird

Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:19 PM (#3395824)

el hombre!

17. zonk Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:24 PM (#3395829)

Not that he should have won over Pujols, but there's a lot of criminal activity afoot in the overlooking of Chase Utley.

18. HGM Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:27 PM (#3395832)

Not that he should have won over Pujols, but there's a lot of criminal activity afoot in the overlooking of Chase Utley.

Agreed.

And Ryan Howard is hilariously overrated.

19. Randy Jones Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:29 PM (#3395834)

Not that he should have won over Pujols, but there's a lot of criminal activity afoot in the overlooking of Chase Utley.

No, the explanation is simple. Each year Chase Utley acquires the list of NL MVP voters from the BBWAA. He then proceeds to drive to each of their homes and punch them in the face, one by one.

20. battlekow Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:30 PM (#3395835)

Should Fielder have finished above Howard? Howard was super clutch this year (1.183 OPS in high-leverage PAs) while Fielder was merely clutch (1.045); however, Howard's tOPS+ for that split is much higher than Fielder's (146 vs. 105) because Howard hit so much worse the rest of the time (140 OPS+ to Fielder's 168).

21. Ryan Jones Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:32 PM (#3395839)

No, the explanation is simple. Each year Chase Utley acquires the list of NL MVP voters from the BBWAA. He then proceeds to drive to each of their homes and punch them in the face, one by one.

So you're saying that there are at least 18 masochists with an MVP ballot.

22. snapper Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:45 PM (#3395850)

Boooooring!

BBWAA incompetence makes for much better threads.

23. Randy Jones Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:53 PM (#3395858)

So you're saying that there are at least 18 masochists with an MVP ballot.

There are far more than 18. The rest were disappointed that Chase only punched them once.

24. TedBerg

Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:57 PM (#3395862)

I'm more baffled by the Miguel Tejada vote. I don't know if he even cracked the Top 5 most valuable Astros.

25. retro-shiite Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:01 PM (#3395868)

Should Fielder have finished above Howard?

Perhaps not. I see some irony here, insofar as Fielder's father was sort of Howard's predecessor in the "hilariously overrated homer-hitting first baseman who fares way better in the MVP voting than his play justifies" genre. Cecil never won an MVP, but he finished second a couple times.

26. retro-shiite Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:01 PM (#3395870)

I don't know if he even cracked the Top 5 most valuable Astros.

In fairness, that competition was mighty tough.

27. Greg Goosen at 30

Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:03 PM (#3395872)

No New York Mets received a vote this year. And no Met has ever won an MVP despite four first-place and two wild card finishes. Can we put this "East Coast bias" myth to bed already?

28. Ryan Jones Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:05 PM (#3395873)

Cecil never won an MVP, but he finished second a couple times.

And Fielder ####### long and loud about those finishes, while pointing out his league leading totals in HRs and RBI.

29. Dewey, Local Boy and Soupuss Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:08 PM (#3395874)

And Fielder ####### long and loud about those finishes, while pointing out his league leading totals in HRs and RBI.

He probably would have won if he wasn't going up against Rickey Henderson's 1990 or Cal Ripken's 1991. Those were consensus future hall-of-famers having career years, and the vote was still pretty close. A lot of voters gave Fielder a lot of credit for those RBIs.

30. Mark Armour Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:09 PM (#3395876)

Since the start of division play (1969) ...

Mets: 4 pennants, 0 MVPs
Yankees: 11 pennants, 4 MVPs
Red Sox: 4 pennants, 5 MVPs

I would assume a strong correlation in these numbers, but perhaps not.

31. JPWF13

Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:10 PM (#3395878)

No New York Mets received a vote this year. And no Met has ever won an MVP despite four first-place and two wild card finishes.

No Met deserved a vote this year.

The only Met who CLEARLY should have been MVP was Gooden in 1985, his failure to win can be chalked up to anti-pitcher bias.

Strawberry could have won in 1988, and he might have had KH not actively campaigned against him.

Other than that, there obviously is no pro NY bias, and the claims that opne exists are simp;y getting tiresome

32. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:12 PM (#3395879)

Wasn't Fielder's big complaint that he lost one year to Rickey & everyone said it was because the Tigers were so bad, and then the next year he lost to Ripken even though the Tigers finished way ahead of the Orioles?

Not saying he was right, but that was quite the clever two-step the BBWAA pulled.

33. The Piehole of David Wells, Red Sox Colostomy Bag Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:12 PM (#3395880)

Jeter got robbed AGAIN!

34. Dewey, Local Boy and Soupuss Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:15 PM (#3395883)

Wasn't Fielder's big complaint that he lost one year to Rickey & everyone said it was because the Tigers were so bad, and then the next year he lost to Ripken even though the Tigers finished way ahead of the Orioles?

And yet he easily beat Frank Thomas in the (1991) voting, despite the fact that Thomas had a much better season and the White Sox won more games than the Tigers did.

35. Mark Armour Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:16 PM (#3395887)

Had Fielder won the 1990 MVP award it would have been one of the very worst picks ever, positively Burroughsian.

36. Dayton Moore is a Big Fat Idiot (AG#1F) Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:18 PM (#3395888)

This will bolster Jeremy Affeldt's HOF case.

37. Confined to the Halls of Congers (formerly Y...) Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:30 PM (#3395896)

Had Fielder won the 1990 MVP award it would have been one of the very worst picks ever, positively Burroughsian.

Ditto for 1991.

38. retro-shiite Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:33 PM (#3395898)

Who do you figure should've been AL MVP in '74? (Not saying it should've been Burroughs, necessarily--just asking.) Reggie would've been an obvious choice, maybe, but he finished 4th. That might've been one of those fluke years where there were no really obvious candidates.

39. ess eff Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:34 PM (#3395900)

positively Burroughsian

Interesting coinage. So would a result that was as bad as the 1987 NL Cy Young vote be positively Bedrosianian?

40. battlekow Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:34 PM (#3395901)

Cecil never won an MVP, but he finished second a couple times.

So are Cecil and Prince the second father/son combo in which both pere and fils tallied at least two top-five MVP finishes? Bobby Bonds had a third- and a fourth-place finish, so obviously the Bondses are in. Felipe & Moises almost make it; Moises had two third-place finishes, while Felipe had a fifth-place finish, but his next best was 10th. Ken Griffey, Sr's best finish was 8th.

41. retro-shiite Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:36 PM (#3395903)

I dunno...Burroughs wasn't far from the league lead in OPS+ (162, versus Reggie's 166), and he was clearly the best hitter on a team that won 84 games after winning 57 the previous year. That's the sort of scenario that produces MVPs, whether he was the absolute best player in the league or not. (I don't remember Burroughs except as a near-washed up Oakland A in the '80s, so I just have the stat lines to go on for '74--how bad was his defense?)

42. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:38 PM (#3395908)

Looks to me like Reggie or Rod Carew in 1974. I'm actually surprised Carew didn't win it.

43. retro-shiite Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:42 PM (#3395917)

I'm guessing Reggie was hurt by his having won the award the previous year, and perhaps by the A's having won the WS the two previous years; his being the perhaps best player on the division-winning A's wasn't seen as such a big deal by the voters, especially in light of the factors I mentioned in Burroughs' favor. It's like Bonds not winning in '91, even though he was pretty clearly the league's best player--he'd won in '90, the Pirates repeated (and had a bunch of other stars), and Pendleton came out of nowhere for a pennant-winning team that itself came out of nowhere. Like Burroughs in '74, except the Rangers didn't win the division--though they improved by about as much as the '91 Braves did.

And Reggie was probably hurt by vote splitting, being one of several candidates on the A's--he finished 4th in the league, but 3rd on his own team (after Rudi and Bando).

44. zonk Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:43 PM (#3395919)

One SF writer right when the season ended said he'd vote Affeldt 10th. Guess he really did. It's no worse than voting Street 9th and Hawpe 10th, as some Denver writer probably did.

Must be inside-clubhouse stuff... Maybe Affeldt is Lincecum's source?

45. Teal & Black Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:44 PM (#3395920)

I register my dissatisfaction with this result. HanRam plays shortstop; further, I am a fan of the franchise for which he plays. Ergo, he was screwed over in favor of an immobile lump of a "first baseman"--which is practically a DH--who is really probably 35.

46. Mark Armour Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:45 PM (#3395923)

I would have voted for Reggie, though I am not an OPS+ guy. He had won the year before, and he tailed off in the second half. In mid-summer he was on a bunch of national magazines as one of the greatest hitters of all-time. Reggie was also an underrated baserunner and defensive player. Jackson was a great all-around player with the A's, then became just a slugger with the Yankees. I have always blamed Martin for this, but that's just me.

47. JPWF13

Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:46 PM (#3395925)

Had Fielder won the 1990 MVP award it would have been one of the very worst picks ever, positively Burroughsian.

Fielder also said something along the lines that if anyone put up the numbers he did (anyone but him) they'd win every year- Bill James dissected that one pretty good - among other things he noted was that Aaron replicated Fielder's 1991 HR/RBI numbers literally every year- with a batting average 50 points higher... and he wasn't winning MVPs those years.

Burroughs wasn't even the worst 1974 MVP pick, granted he was a slug, but he was 2nd in runs created to [the far more valuable] Rod Carew, and 3rd in OPS+ (closely behind Reggie and Dick Allen- who had 140 less PAs)

Garvey was 9th in RC in the NL, 28 behind the leader, and 14th in OPS+, the MVP should have been Schmidt or Joe Morgan...

48. Cold Prosimian Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:49 PM (#3395931)

"Bedrosianian" hahaha. That sounds like an Armenian name.

I think one of the reasons Utley gets overlooked is because he's imploded in the second half.

OPS by half (Pre/Post ASG)
2009 1.003/.790
2008 .954/.855

This "proves he isn't a clutch player".

He was more consistent in '05 and '06, but he wasn't on the radar of a lot of MSM writers then.

(I don't agree with any of this reasoning, but what other reason could there be?)

49. ess eff Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:50 PM (#3395932)

One SF writer right when the season ended said he'd vote Affeldt 10th. Guess he really did.

The Affeldt voter

50. zonk Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:51 PM (#3395935)

Reggie was also an underrated baserunner and defensive player

Admittedly, I was really around for more of the Yankee/Angel Reggie, but I always thought he was pretty horrendous defensively. I think Jackson himself once said the only way he'd get a gold glove was with a can of spraypaint.

Was that not always the case?

51. JPWF13

Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:51 PM (#3395938)

then became just a slugger with the Yankees. I have always blamed Martin for this

Yes, Billy made Reggie get older and slower...

That silly HBO movie on the 1977 Yankees had Billy Martin privately pouting that the Yankees had signed a career .260 hitter...

Billy publicly complained about Reggie's batting average, but my sense was that he did that to tick off George & Reggie- he wasn't someone who evaluated players solely by batting average (though such baseball people did indeed exist), he was quite well aware that the ability to hit for power and to get on base was valuable irrespective of batting average...

52. Mark Armour Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:53 PM (#3395941)

In his 20s, Jackson played fine defense. He played center field in 1972, and Earl Weaver played him there 16 times in 1976.

53. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 24, 2009 at 03:57 PM (#3395946)

Yes, Billy made Reggie get older and slower...

Too many Reggie Bars...

54. what the hell, just use your initials or something Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:08 PM (#3395962)

Had Fielder won the 1990 MVP award it would have been one of the very worst picks ever, positively Burroughsian.

Ditto for 1991.

But if Cecil had had his 1990 season in 1991, he'd have had a pretty good case.

55. Chris Needham Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:12 PM (#3395967)

Leave it to the Washington Times to leave Ryan Zimmerman off their ballot entirely. Sigh.

56. Anonymous Observer Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:17 PM (#3395969)

At 46, this makes him the oldest MVP winner, doesn't it?

AO

57. Stevens Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:26 PM (#3395975)

58. Eric J Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:27 PM (#3395976)

Garvey was 9th in RC in the NL, 28 behind the leader, and 14th in OPS+, the MVP should have been Schmidt or Joe Morgan...

Garvey: .312/.342/.469, 21 HR, 111 RBI, 95 R
Bench: .280/.363/.507, 33 HR, 129 RBI, 108 R

I realize the Dodgers won the division. But how does the good defensive first baseman beat the good defensive catcher when the first baseman is clearly inferior as a hitter?

And yes, Morgan should have won.

59. JPWF13

Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:33 PM (#3395984)

I realize the Dodgers won the division. But how does the good defensive first baseman beat the good defensive catcher when the first baseman is clearly inferior as a hitter?

They were tired of voting for Bench?

That's all I got.

60. Steve Treder Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:34 PM (#3395985)

In his 20s, Jackson played fine defense.

True dat. He ran very well, and had a howitzer.

When he declined defensively, it was rather early (right around the age of 30), and it wasn't gradual, it was all of a sudden. Not only did he lose his speed, he also, oddly, lost most of his throwing ability.

61. Adam B. Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:36 PM (#3395988)

Albert Pujols is awesome. Three MVPs, and he's only 29.

[Someone in this thread needs to mention this. Also, a 3d for Helton?]

62. hokieneer Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:41 PM (#3395996)

It's awesome to see Hanley finish 2nd, but awful to see Utley finish 8th.

The last four years Utley has finished 7th,8th,14th,8th. I would guess he was easily top 5, more than likely top 3 in every one of those years.

63. Eric J Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:42 PM (#3395998)

Albert Pujols is awesome. Three MVPs, and he's only 29.

He's currently 5th all-time in MVP shares. He could decline pretty sharply from here and still have a good chance to move into the second spot before he's done.

64. Cabbage Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:48 PM (#3396002)

A Cardinal fan friend said Albert was arguably the greatest right-handed hitter of all time, already. How right is he? I'm thinking Hornsby, Mays, and Aaron have legitimate cases against the prosecution, but I'm curious what you think.

Probably depends on how much of a timeliner you are. I have a hard time presuming that the pre-war, pre-integration guys are the best just because of their numbers, but that is a long and involved discussion.

65. Randy Jones Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:48 PM (#3396003)

A Cardinal fan friend said Albert was arguably the greatest right-handed hitter of all time, already. How right is he? I'm thinking Hornsby, Mays, and Aaron have legitimate cases against the prosecution, but I'm curious what you think.

The 3 you mentioned, plus Wagner, Foxx, and Frank Robinson. All have similar (or better) peaks to Albert and longer careers. He could end up there, but not yet.

66. Tom Nawrocki Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:51 PM (#3396012)

[Someone in this thread needs to mention this. Also, a 3d for Helton?]

It was nice to see some down-ballot love for Helton, but he was pretty obviously not the third-best player in the league.

Good to see Tulowitzki in the Top Five, though. He really does have a good case for third-best player in the league.

67. Superunknown Gary Geiger Counter Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:54 PM (#3396014)

The Schell database has Hornsby #1, but that has a positional adjustment.

68. Mefisto Posted: November 24, 2009 at 04:55 PM (#3396018)

A Cardinal fan friend said Albert was arguably the greatest right-handed hitter of all time, already. How right is he? I'm thinking Hornsby, Mays, and Aaron have legitimate cases against the prosecution, but I'm curious what you think.

Unless you believe in a time line, Hornsby is always going to win this. Through Albert's age 29 season, he has an OPS+ of 172. At the same age, Hornsby was over 180 (B-Ref won't calculate that page for some reason), Aaron was 157 (how consistent is that? His career was 155!) and Mays was 158 (ditto: career 156).

Edit: Foxx was 167, Wagner 150.

69. Mark Armour Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:00 PM (#3396022)

Yes, Billy made Reggie get older and slower...

Here is my thought on this. I will be brief, because I am on shaky ground and don't want to defend this too much.

My impression is that Jackson was the most emotionally-sensitive star player of my lifetime. When he got to NY, Martin hated him and immediately began trying to beat him down mentally. Jackson desparately wanted Martin to like him, so much that he began to believe everything Martin said about him. Martin DH'd him long before he deserved it, and soon enough he did deserve it.

70. Blackadder Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:03 PM (#3396028)

But if Cecil had had his 1990 season in 1991, he'd have had a pretty good case.

This is false. Ripken's 1991 is quite possibly the best individual season of the 1990's.

71. hokieneer Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:04 PM (#3396029)

Frank Thomas had an OPS+ of 182 at age 29.

Edit: 182 not 181.

72. Randy Jones Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:08 PM (#3396032)

Frank Thomas had an OPS+ of 181 at age 29.

Ouch, I'm embarrassed that I forgot about the Big Hurt. He is my favorite non-Yankee player ever, and yeah, he also belongs in this discussion.

73. Mark Armour Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:08 PM (#3396033)

This is false. Ripken's 1991 is quite possibly the best individual season of the 1990's.

I would take Rickey's 1990. I don't think this is a tough call actually.

74. Jeff K. Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:11 PM (#3396037)

Probably depends on how much of a timeliner you are. I have a hard time presuming that the pre-war, pre-integration guys are the best just because of their numbers, but that is a long and involved discussion.

And Lord knows if there's anything this site hates, it's long and involved discussions about ephemeral topics. :)

I'll start: Ryan, you're wrong, and a ####### idiot!

75. Cabbage Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:13 PM (#3396039)

And Lord knows if there's anything this site hates, it's long and involved discussions about ephemeral topics. :)

LORD PALMERSTON!

76. Dewey, Local Boy and Soupuss Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:14 PM (#3396041)

This is false. Ripken's 1991 is quite possibly the best individual season of the 1990's.

I would take Rickey's 1990. I don't think this is a tough call actually.

Are we taking defense into account?

77. Ryan Jones Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:14 PM (#3396042)

I'll start: Ryan, you're wrong, and a ####### idiot!

I'll continue. Jeff, you're wrong, and a ####### idiot, because you're trying to start an argument with the wrong Jones.

78. Jeff K. Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:18 PM (#3396049)

I'll continue. Jeff, you're wrong, and a ####### idiot, because you're trying to start an argument with the wrong Jones.

No, I intended you. Randy is American, there's a chance he's right about something. Vestigial tail-having penguin-bad-touching Canadians are always wrong.

79. Ryan Jones Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:22 PM (#3396052)

No, I intended you. Randy is American, there's a chance he's right about something. Vestigial tail-having penguin-bad-touching Canadians are always wrong.

Jesus Christ, the heat down in Texas has got to be overloading your tiny, tiny brain. You better drill a hole in the side of your head, so you can safely let some of that hot air out.

Get it straight - we don't have penguins in Canada. All the bad-touching is done with seals.

80. Tripon Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:24 PM (#3396056)

Wow, Andre Ethier finishing 6th place, Kemp finishing 10th? Ethier getting two 2nd place votes?

81. OCF Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:25 PM (#3396058)

Before signing off on that "best year of the 90's," take another look at Bonds 1993. And maybe a couple of pitcher years as well.

82. Tripon Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:26 PM (#3396060)

Ryan, just make fun of Major Applewhite, and Jeff K. shall turn into his villainous version, K. Jeff.

83. Ryan Jones Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:30 PM (#3396066)

Ryan, just make fun of Major Applewhite, and Jeff K. shall turn into his villainous version, K. Jeff.

Is that some sort of regional insult of which I'm not aware, as in "Dammit, you're such a major applewhite. What the hell were you thinking?"

84. Confined to the Halls of Congers (formerly Y...) Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:32 PM (#3396071)

This is false. Ripken's 1991 is quite possibly the best individual season of the 1990's.

Right. I don't know if was the best individual season of the 1990's, but it was top 5, and there's no way Fielder's 1990 compares. They had almost the same offensive value, and you're comparing an excellent SS to a mediocre 1b. No contest.

85. Tripon Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:32 PM (#3396072)

No, he is a former Texas QB who apprently saved all of our sins.

edit: Although, the way Ryan puts it, The Major becomes a great insult.

86. Confined to the Halls of Congers (formerly Y...) Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:40 PM (#3396081)

The best non-pitcher seasons of the 90's, in no particular order, are
Ripken 1991
Henderson 1990
Bonds 1993
ARod 1996
Thomas 1994
Bagwell 1994
Griffey 1997
McGwire 1998
Jeter 1999
Williams 1999

87. retro-shiite Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:40 PM (#3396082)

No, he is a former Texas QB who apprently saved all of our sins.

Talk about false idolatry. Dude couldn't even beat Syracuse in the Carrier Dome.

88. Hugh Jorgan Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:44 PM (#3396085)

sorry but this has to be considered as best season of the 90's..

23 4 .852 2.07 31 29 1 5 1 0 213.1 160 56 49 9 37 1 313 9 0 6 835 243 0.923 6.8 0.4 1.6 13.2 8.46

Got to love the .923 whip and 313K's in only 213 innings.

And yes, the 2000 season was even better.

89. Teal & Black Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:46 PM (#3396090)

If you guys played on a football team one would be Ra. Jones and the other Ry. Jones. In other words, get new ####### handles.

90. mrams Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:49 PM (#3396093)

Talk about false idolatry. Dude couldn't even beat Syracuse in the Carrier Dome.

But he did beat Nebraska two times (back when they rarely lost), including once in Lincoln as a freshman, and that list is exactly one quarterback long, (Applewhite).

wait a minute, Applewhite didn't even play Syracuse, I guess that means he didn't beat them either.

Wasn't Peter Gardere UT's QB when they lost at 'Cuse? BTW: Gardere beat OU 4 times!

91. Randy Jones Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:50 PM (#3396094)

If you guys played on a football team one would be Ra. Jones and the other Ry. Jones. In other words, get new ####### handles.

Since my name is not really Randy Jones, I should probably be the one to change handles. However, since I am American, I will be stubborn and demand that Ryan change his handle.

92. what the hell, just use your initials or something Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:51 PM (#3396095)

This is false. Ripken's 1991 is quite possibly the best individual season of the 1990's.

First of all, I said he'd have a pretty good case. I did not say that he'd deserve to win, or that he'd have gotten my hypothetical vote. But given the actual voting population, and given that Fielder did in fact finish second in both 1990 and 1991, I don't think it's impossible to believe that he might have actually beaten the guy from the last place team if he'd hit his 50 bombs in 1991 instead of 1990.

I'd also put Henderson's 1990 ahead of Ripken's 1991. He hit a lot better and stole 65 bases at an 87% success rate.

93. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:51 PM (#3396096)

Jacksom hated being DH, b#tched about being the DH and told people that Martin was dumb for putting a "guy who can't move and no arm" in right field referring to Lou.

And Reggie's numbers were much reduced as DH.

94. The Most Interesting Man In The World Posted: November 24, 2009 at 05:54 PM (#3396100)

Way to go Pablo Sandoval in finishing 7th. Figured you'd get a few votes, but that surprises me.

95. Cabbage Posted: November 24, 2009 at 06:06 PM (#3396112)

Ryan, just make fun of Major Applewhite, and Jeff K. shall turn into his villainous version, K. Jeff.

Does K. Jeff have a goatee?

96. Tripon Posted: November 24, 2009 at 06:10 PM (#3396115)

A goatee, and a twirly mustache.

97. Jeff K. Posted: November 24, 2009 at 06:10 PM (#3396117)

Ryan, just make fun of Major Applewhite, and Jeff K. shall turn into his villainous version, K. Jeff.

I believe you mean "Negative K."

I got a seal
(whatcha seal got to do with me)
I got a seal
(I'm not that slippery)
--------------
Wow, Andre Ethier finishing 6th place, Kemp finishing 10th? Ethier getting two 2nd place votes?

It's got to be the 30 HRs, because I can't see any other reason.

98. DL from MN Posted: November 24, 2009 at 06:17 PM (#3396123)

greatest right-handed hitter of all time

Josh Gibson

99. retro-shiite Posted: November 24, 2009 at 06:18 PM (#3396124)

wait a minute, Applewhite didn't even play Syracuse, I guess that means he didn't beat them either.

D'oh. I was thinking of Shea Morenz, apparently.

EDIT: Double checking...Gardere in '92 (a loss in the Dome), Morenz in '93 (tie in Austin).

100. robinred