I usually avoid these threads but .... the awards "races" are about the most tedious, un-interesting parts of the baseball season, yet the subject is lapped up by people everywhere (and here) after it is spurred on by the very people who benefit (in prestige, importance) from the award "races" getting bloated meaning.

It starts in the preseason with everyones "picks," and then another artice after April, and then in a conceited move, writers give out "mid-season hardware"... as if naming one's choice for an imaginary, half-season MVP award is any, way, shape or form a kind of "hardware" in the literal sense, or honor in the non-literal sense. And now we are in the stretch where everyone rushes to get the jump on everyone else by naming their awards choices for a season that is not even complete! jeebus make it stop.

So, let me ask you, Cubs fans, where do you go with this campaign? Who’s your guy? Who’s the best candidate for MVP from the team that is killing every other team?

The intro quote ends just before the most important point: Who cares? I'll freely admit that no Cub is a serious candidate for this year's NL MVP. (To answer the last question, I suspect Soto will get the most support in the voting of any Cub, though I don't think there's any way to argue he's actually the MVP. I suppose Soriano or Ramirez could get more votes than Soto, depending on how the next 6 weeks shake out.)

When you've got virtually an entire roster of players who are somewhat above average though not great, not having any one player who's dominant isn't that big a concern.

It really is amazing how deep and balanced the Cubs have been to this point.



pBRAR are my position-adjusted batting runs above replacement, dRSAA are defensive runs saved above average using the Notorious Chris Dial's zone rating conversion system, and TR is just pBRAR plus dRSAA. Using this methodolgy, which is somewhat limited, the Cubs haven't gotten a single replacement-level performance from any position player so far.

The simplest way to do this is just give the MVP to the Cub on the major league team with the highest OPS+: Carlos Zambrano.

The simplest way to do this is just give the MVP to the Cub on the major league team with the highest OPS+: Carlos Zambrano.

Heh. Big Z really has been something with the bat this year. He's been better with the stick than with his arm the last two times out--he homered against the Cards but got absolutely torched, and was shaky against Florida and would've gotten an L if not for Daryle Ward's heroics, but he had an RBI single.

It really is amazing how deep and balanced the Cubs have been to this point.

This is why they are the best team in the league. Everyone they run out there helps put runs on the board.

If I had to pick an "MVP candidate", it'd easily be Soto.

I never thought I'd see the day when there were that many Cub OBPs over .350. It used to be such a frustrating team to watch, constantly hacking away at anything thrown toward the plate.

You'd get to the 8th and 9th inning with the team down 1 and a pitcher on the mound with a history of control problems, and the Cubs would just hand him a 6-pitch inning by swinging at crap. Even the successful teams (like 2003) were like that. Lee's OBP - second lowest in the starting lineup - would have been second highest (tied with Sosa) on that 2003 team.

This Cubs team is similar to the 1984 Tigers and the 1986 mets. 2 100 win teams without any real MVP candidate (Willie Hernandez notwithstanding), but excellent players everywhere and no real weaknesses. Worst regulars:

1984 Tigers - Howard Johnson 98 OPS+ 3B or Larry Herndon 103 OPS+ LF
1986 Mets - Rafael Santana 52 OPS+ SS (OK, Santana was bad), George Foster 98 OPS+ LF
2008 Cubs - Kosuke Fukudome 97 OPS+ RF or Ryan Theriot 101 OPS+ SS.

And now we are in the stretch where everyone rushes to get the jump on everyone else by naming their awards choices for a season that is not even complete! jeebus make it stop.

Translation: I hate fun.

I'd probably pick Dempster as the team's MVP although he probably won't get a single vote. Soto's the best candidate to actually place high.

I never thought I'd see the day when there were that many Cub OBPs over .350.

Right now the Cubs have six players with an OBP over .350 and on pace to qualify for the batting title. Last time that happened? 1935.

All 6 are over 460 PA and the lowest OBP is .358, second lowest .367.

Last time 5 were over .350? 1972. Before then it was 1958, then 1937.

This Cubs team is similar to the 1984 Tigers and the 1986 mets. 2 100 win teams without any real MVP candidate (Willie Hernandez notwithstanding), but excellent players everywhere and no real weaknesses.

Only this Cubs team isn't nearly as good.

I hate fun

Whoa! Check out Jim Edmonds. Crazy sh!t, Batman
Cardinals fans must be furious right now

I think a fan's first reaction is to be an advocate, and to want to push the best player on your favorite team for MVP. But, as a White Sox fan, I'd much rather be where the Cubs are (great team with no clear MVP) than where the White Sox are (pretty good team with a guy who may win the MVP).

Everyone knows that sportswriters like guys on teams that squeak into the playoffs as opposed to guys whose teams coast in. I'm sure there's also a prejudice in favor of new guys on surprise teams that sucked last year -- hence Quentin's candidacy (and Ichiro winning a few years ago). He, Swisher, Orlando Cabrera, and Alexei Ramirez are all new, and Swisher and Cabrera have been OK but not great.

I wonder how Alexei does in ROY voting? His slugging percentage is up to .484 (second highest among AL second basemen), and his OPS of 813 is fourth among AL second basemen (although his OBP is pretty low). He's fun to watch, too -- amazing power from a guy who looks like he weighs about 150.

If I had to pick an "MVP candidate", it'd easily be Soto.

I'm starting to come around on this. I've seen it suggested a couple of places now, and it really isn't that crazy. Depends on how much credit you give him for the pitching staff's success.

---

I should have checked this thread before I posted
this blog entry. I had to post something, so I'm going to copy and paste Doc's post 11 over there.

Whoa! Check out Jim Edmonds. Crazy sh!t, Batman
Cardinals fans must be furious right now

I think you mean Padres fans. If they have any.

This Cubs team is similar to the 1984 Tigers and the 1986 mets. 2 100 win teams without any real MVP candidate (Willie Hernandez notwithstanding), but excellent players everywhere and no real weaknesses.

Only this Cubs team isn't nearly as good.

"nearly" is an adjective too far, IMO. I could be convinced this year's Cubs aren't AS good, but they're in the race with the 84 Tigers and 86 Mets. They've got an outstanding rotation, a great bullpen, and a deep lineup.

As far as the question from the article -- I remember 1987. I remember marveling at the Hawk and figuring it was a done deal that he'd win the MVP, even though the Cubs were just horrid.

This is a lot more fun.

I think I prefer the idea of a balanced team that isn't made or broken by the presence or absence of one person.

"nearly" is an adjective too far, IMO. I could be convinced this year's Cubs aren't AS good, but they're in the race with the 84 Tigers and 86 Mets. They've got an outstanding rotation, a great bullpen, and a deep lineup.

Before you compare the Cubs to those teams, I think the Cubs have to win the World Series. I don't know about you but I have my doubts about the Cubs ability to win a World Series.

Before you compare the Cubs to those teams, I think the Cubs have to win the World Series. I don't know about you but I have my doubts about the Cubs ability to win a World Series.

Hey, no doubt... and if "winning the world series" is a necessary qualifier to discuss the 3 teams in the same breath, then the 2008 Cubs aren't yet ready to be discussed in the same breath just yet...

But the statement wasn't defined in terms of achievement, it was defined in terms of which team was/is "better" -- and I'll stand by my thinking that when we reach game 162, if you line up the 1984 Tigers, the 1986 Mets, and the 2008 Cubs, you're going to find 3 fairly similar teams.

Let's not forget, too, with the Brewers and Cardinals and the advent of the unbalanced schedule - the Cubs are certainly playing more games against superior teams than did the '84 Tigers or '86 Mets.

Unfortunately for the Cubs, they have an extra round of playoffs than the 84 Tigers and 86 Mets had. Give the Cubs a 60% chance of winning each playoff series, and they still come up as world champs only 21.6% of the time.

"nearly" is an adjective too far, IMO. I could be convinced this year's Cubs aren't AS good, but they're in the race with the 84 Tigers and 86 Mets.

I thought about if that adjective belonged when I posted that. I realized it did. ---

- the 1986 Mets won 108 games. No NL team since then has won that many. Last time an NL team won more. 1909. That's so far back the Cubs were defending world champs. Only one other NL team has won as many - the 1975 Reds, widely regraded as one of the greatest teams of all-time.

If you think the Cubs are only 6-8 games worse, guess what? An extra 6-8 wins is huge in that rarified air. The Cubs are a standard best team in the league. The 1986 Mets were a team for the ages. When I say thye're 6-8 wins worse, that's a best case scenario. The Cubs are scheduled to only win about 99-100 games now and have a very tough schedule ahead of them (after this week anyway).

As for the TIgers, they put the pennant race away in APril. I think at one brief point early in the season, the Cubs were on pace to win 104 games. The Tigers did that while on cruise control for 5 montsh. Then they led for all but 8 innings in the postseason. (Or rather, trailed for only 8, each game started tied 0-0). Those squads were dominant. THe Cubs are merely the team with the best record. Again, in this high an altitude, those extra victories take on a heavy importance.

Wanna good comp for the Cubs that still leaves you with pleasant post-season thouhgts? It's the 2002 Angels. A really solid squad where no one played light years over their head but everyone did as well as expected. That might be a bit of a reach also. Those Angels had one of the toughest schedules any team has ever had, with the unbalanced scheduled making htem face the Moneyball A's and Pinilla's Mariners (who won 116 games the year before). The Cubs have a tough division but in what is (to put it mildly) a weak league.

Not as good as the '86 Mets? They haven't shown to be as good as the '02 Angels. Or the 2008 Angels, for that matter. Hence the word "nearly" belongs in my previous post.

Let's not forget, too, with the Brewers and Cardinals and the advent of the unbalanced schedule - the Cubs are certainly playing more games against superior teams than did the '84 Tigers or '86 Mets.

Unless you factor in league quality.

It really is amazing how deep and balanced the Cubs have been to this point.

I posted this in today's Gonfalon Cubs thread. Here are the Cubs' OPS splits by position:

C 866
1B 843
2B 842
3B 907
SS 756
LF 858
CF 871
RF 746

Piniella has done a great job of mixing and matching.

Oh yeah ... the lowest OBP at any position is 343 in LF so, if anything, those OPS's are OBP-heavy.

Meanwhile, in the less sexy but more important category of runs driven in ...

I've been hanging around this place too long. I forgot there are people who still think like this.

They are, of course, 100% correct.

There are arguments to be made that the 2008 Cubs are as good as the 1986 Mets. Those Mets pythag'd at a .636 W%. The Cubs so far are Pythag'ing at a .632 w%. The '86 Mets a had a 115 team OPS+ and a 115 team ERA+. This years Cubs have a 112 OPS+ and a 120 ERA+.

Obviously one can claim that wins are a better measure, etc., but I think one could argue that the two teams are roughly equivalent.