User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6455 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
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.
1. RMc is the loyal supporter of the MLB event Posted: September 20, 2011 at 11:33 AM (#3930631)He is much better with the NBA and NCAA basketball. he should stick to that.
I always thought the MVP meant more because everyone is eligible. I can see arguments that starters were more deserving when they pitched 300 innings instead of 220. But I wouldn't say they shouldn't be allowed.
Starting pitchers have been winning fewer and fewer MVP awards because starting pitchers are less valuable than they used to be... they pitch less. It's become relatively rare for a starting pitcher to be the most valuable player in a league. That doesn't mean that it can't happen. The top starting pitchers play in slightly more than 1/5 of a team's games... is it really so completely incomprehensible that they might have five times more influence on the outcome of the game than any individual hitter does? If they do, then they can be the most valuable player.
I'm not even going to mention the fact that the rules, when last I checked, explicitly state that pitchers should be considered... the real reason we shouldn't be having this argument.
This is the kind of guy that would never vote for a hall of famer on his first ballot.
You can't acknowledge that position player's deserve part of the credit on defense, without also acknowledging that pitchers therfore don't deserve full credit.
Of course, but if a starting pitcher is pitching 7+ innings (which is about the minimum one would expect of an MVP candidate pitcher), and is accounting for something on the order of 80% of the defensive contribution it's still a heck of a lot more of a contribution to any single game than the everyday player who's accounting for roughly 1/9th of the offensive contribution and 1/8th of the remaining 20% of the defensive side.
Is it enough to compensate for only appearing in 35 games? Tough call... usually, probably not... on the other hand, there are going to be times when a pitcher has an exceptional year and it does. It's harder now than it used to be, because pitchers who were making 40 starts and frequently pitching 8+ innings were accruing more value than current players, but we haven't yet reached the point where it's impossible for a pitcher to have the most value of any pitcher in the league.
I agree with this, but just to make it interesting, the CYA winners should be allowed to challenge the MVPs to a simulated 9 inning game for bragging rights, to be staged after the World Series in one of the 3 Southern California ballparks. The details could be arranged by the sponsors, including the method of determining the winner.
They should do it in Hawaii and they should do it with Wiffleball.
I would bet that Ryan didn't have a vote, at least when pedro was toiling for the Sox.
They should do it in Hawaii and they should do it with Wiffleball.
While wearing bikinis on a beach volleyball court, in order to attract the casual fan, although that might not work if Prince Fielder were to win.
However he would have put Pedro Martinez fifth on his American League MVP ballot.
So Bob Ryan doesn't think that pitchers should win MVP awards, but he would still put them on his MVP ballot.
EDIT: I owe a link free Coke.
Forget Ryan's voting record on pitchers - has ne ever voted for a DH?
That's not really inconsistent. It's fair to believe something SHOULD be a certain way, but act according to the way it is. That's vastly preferable to the George King method of believing pitchers shouldn't be eligible*, and then voting as if that's the rule (an act that should result in the vote being stripped).
* At least in 1999, if I'm not mistaken.
The Sawamura Award, often referred to as Japan's version of the Cy Young Award, does make that distinction. It's specifically for starting pitchers. Another facet is that the award is not always given out; four times no pitcher has been deemed worthy of the award that season, so it simply hasn't been given. There have also been two times when the award has been given to two pitchers. The award covers both leagues.
Yes it is. He's saying that pitchers have no business being on an MVP ballot, but still would have put one on his.
* At least in 1999, if I'm not mistaken.
Right, George King omitted Martinez from his 1999 vote because "MVP is for everyday players." One year earlier, King had included both David Wells (an 8th place pick) and Rick Helling (10th) on the back end of his MVP ballot.
No other voter took note of Helling, who was 20-7 with a 4.41 ERA, a 1.33 WHIP, and 251 strikeouts in 234 IP. The same year, Roger Clemens (not on King's ballot) was 20-6 with a 2.65 ERA, 1.10 WHIP, and 271 strikeouts in 235 IP. Helling got zero votes for the 1998 Cy Young Award.
This raised my eyebrows.... it was only 164 Ks---not 251!---and he only pitched 216 innings that year.
And hitters are only up four, maybe five times a game, so they're not every inning contributors, and thus should be ineligible as well.
This raised my eyebrows.... it was only 164 Ks---not 251!---and he only pitched 216 innings that year.
Sorry, somehow my eyeballs merged two statistical columns after I scrolled over. 251 Ks in 234 IP were Pedro Martinez's numbers that year.
No, it's not. He believes that pitchers should not be eligible for the MVP.
However, despite his opinion on the matter, they are eligible for the MVP. Thus, he has an obligation to consider them with a vote.*
* Which, of course, he probably hasn't had for a long, long time. An important fact to remember at this time of year - beat writers vote on the awards, columnists offer dumb opinions on them, generally speaking.
Well, so much for catchers or any good fielders who don't hit like corner players.
But that's silly. He's not saying they should be ineligible because of some technicality or because they have their own award. He's saying they should be ineligible because their contribution is so substantially different from hitters, that we cannot weigh them against each other. And then he went and weighed a pitcher against hitters in MVP balloting. If he thinks pitchers value cannot be weighed against hitters value, he should not list pitchers on his MVP ballot.
I agree. See also: Hideki Matsui/Angel Berroa
I know its your passion to defend idiot sportswriters at all costs (and it costs you a lot), but I don't think your logic follows.
Yes, Ryan thinks pitchers should not be eligible for the MVP, but that's because he thinks there's no way to validly compare their contributions to that of an everyday player.
If he is incapable of making the comparison, then he logically shouldn't be supporting any pitcher on any ballot he has (real or imaginary).
I again note his reasoning:
"Hey, nice try, but just please go away. Pitchers pitch to batters; that’s what they do. It doesn’t change the fact that their essential nature is not that of an everyday player, and there remains no valid way to evaluate properly their respective contributions, so why even try?"
Nor hitters, for that matter.
I understand that aspect of it. But he is not saying that "I don't think pitchers should not be eligible but until then I'd still vote for them." He's saying "pitchers should not be considered on the MVP ballot." Except for that time he considered one on his (hypothetical) ballot.
Why is it silly? He is required by the rules of the ballot to make a judgment he feels incapable of making. Presumably he does his best and makes the judgment but he can't feel confident in it and would prefer to not be required to make it.
As noted above, the King/Laverne Neal approach from 1999 is much worse than this.
Thank you Jose. That's the point.
And Ray, may I politely request you go and have sexual congress with yourself.
In not just a few, but the majority of Bautista's defensive innings, Bob Ryan could be in right field rather than Jose Bautista and it would make no difference to the game.
There are no pitching innings in which Bob Ryan could be substituted for Justin Verlander with a similar lack of effect.
And this has everything to do with what Ryan smugly and ignorantly calls the "essential nature" of the game. One can stick an absolute stiff in left field for an AB if one has to, and still be pretty confident that Mark Texeira is not gonna hit that dude the ball. One cannot stick an absolute stiff on the mound [insert your own Lackey/Burnett joke here]....
Because his judgment seems to be "I can't judge pitchers against hitters because they do substantially different things. So here is my ballot, which weighs pitchers against hitters."
If I asked you rank the following cities by population - New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Japan - you wouldn't list Japan higher than NYC, you'd say "Japan is not a city, therefore it should not be on the list."
That's a perfect example though. If I'm required by the rules of your ballot to include Japan then I would do so. I would probably note in my widely read City Ranking column that Japan should not be included as it is neither a city nor in the US as the others are but because I have to vote for it, I'll try to balance out what I know about Japan (6.2 WARC vs. Chicago which is 6.1) and vote for a winner.
I will as a member of the CCWAA try to enocourage a ballot that only permits cities to be voted on in the future.
EDIT: Oops, missed the population part of your think. Same holds true though. I would rank Japan 1st because they are 1st of those four locations but I would note to anyone who asked that it was not a fair comparison.
So you'd rather he ignore pitchers altogether, like King/Neal did?
I'm not sure how this analogy remotely comes close to what he's done. He thinks you can't reasonably compare pitchers and position players (he's wrong - wow, did you see that Ray?), but that's his position. However, the rules of the competition specifically require him to do just that. So he takes his best stab at it.
It is not inconsistent. His position can be described as a lot of other things, few of them complimentary. But his hypothetical '99 ballot is not inconsistent with his position that pitchers should not be eligible, for whatever reason he wants to give.
But Jose's point doesn't wash. Ryan doesn't "feel" incapable of making the judgment; he says the judgment is impossible to make, whether it's Ryan trying or Nate Silver trying.
If Ryan was incapable of telling in 1999 whether Pedro was more valuable even than Darren Lewis (pitcher vs. everyday hitter), Ryan shouldn't have had Pedro anywhere on his imaginary ballot.
(Or, as someone pointed out above, Ryan should have left his entire ballot blank.)
Que?
The first year of the CYA was 1956, a year coincidentally in which a starting pitcher won the MVP. Prior to that pitchers won in 1952, 1950, 1945, 1944, 1943, 1942, 1939, 1936, and 1934. That's 9 awards in 50 award seasons (1931-1955). I daresay that's probably as good or better than 3 or 4 positions.
Yes. If he feels he is incapable of comparing the two, I'd rather he not try.
I ask again - what about the DH?
I'd "rather" he buy a clue, but I don't really care whether he does so or not. I'm just pointing out that his position is inherently irrational, and so when you defend him, you tar yourself with a similar brush.
Not to mention that MVP awards can and do go to players with fewer than 140 games played*. So a pitcher with 35 starts really has to be only 4X as valuable on a per game basis.
* Josh Hamilton, 133
Joe Mauer 138
Barry Bonds 130
Juan Gonzalez 134
But that's not what they did.
I can certainly get behind the idea of recusing himself from voting (and again, he has/had no vote), which is probably the optimal solution if you feel that such a firm comparison can not be made (of course, since he believes no one can make it, then abstaining doesn't really solve the inherent problem he sees with the award). But I can't believe you support the idea that one can simply impose his own eligibility standards on an award and vote accordingly. That's preposterous.
As I said, I disagree with his position that the two can't be compared. But his position on the issue isn't inconsistent with a vote for a pitcher, regardless how many "irrationals" Ray wants to toss around.
I don't see why not. If I thought Cam Newton was not amateur and thus not eligible for the Heisman and wrote columns accordingly, wouldn't I be pretty hypocritical if I voted him as Heisman winner?
I think it would be different if Ryan were saying that pitchers just aren't as valuable as hitters in general, and one year, gave the MVP vote to a pitcher over a hitter. That's not hypocritical. What is hypocritical is saying that pitchers cannot be considered because the comparison is too difficult and then making the comparison anyway by including pitchers on the ballot.
Not at all. You would be following the rules. You think Newton is not amateur but the body that you work for has made a decision that Newton IS an amateur and therefore eligible for the award. Assuming no morals clause for the moment, you have an obligation to vote for the best player and if that is Newton, then you vote for him.
Yes, it is.
What we've learned is that Bob Ryan has no idea whether Justin Verlander is more valuable than Vernon Wells this year. No idea at all.
Or, if Ryan _can_ tell that Verlander has been more valuable, then Ryan _does_ think it's possible to compare everyday players with pitchers. In which case Ryan's statement that it's impossible to compare everyday players with pitchers is... irrational. And a lie.
We're not saying that it is the right thing to do. We're saying that if you're going to impose your own eligibility standards on an award, then you should vote accordingly, otherwise you're just blabbering a bunch of hot air. Which is what Bob Ryan does.
He says "you can not compare hitters and pitchers in an MVP vote," has maintained that opinion for a while and yet has previously compared hitters and pitchers in an MVP vote. It's that simple.
Bob Ryan is saying he has no obligation to vote for Newton because he does not feel that he should be eligible for the award.
Maybe we are just reading the article differently. I don't see that as Ryan's point at all, I see his point as pitchers should not be eligible. He didn't list his ballot here, he merely offered up the opinion that Verlander should not be eligible for it. Based on the 1999 column I think it's fair to assume that Ryan would have Verlander on his ballot if he were voting.
Yeah, that's probably right.
I realize subtlety and nuance are not your strong points but gimme a break. I think it's a fair assumption that Ryan can get the right answer to that question but when comparing players who should be reasonably closely matched (Verlander, Bautista, Cabrera, Ellsbury) he feels that the differences create a situation that makes a fair and accurate comparison impossible.
I don't think that's an unreasonable view.
No, he's not. He has not said this, and his earlier hypothetical vote for Pedro said just the opposite. King and Neal are the ones saying that.
Bob Ryan is saying the MVP Award is, essentially, flawed. That the voters are being asked to compare individuals for whom no reliable method of comparison exists. He has argued, consistently and repeatedly, that the award criteria should be fixed to correct this essential flaw. However, until that fix is made, he has no choice but to comply with the eligibility requirements and do his best to determine where a pitcher fits in comparison to position players (as he did with his fifth-place vote for Pedro).* He merely believes that such a determination can not be done with any degree of accuracy.
I happen to think that Ryan's premise, that pitchers and hitters can't be compared, is wrong. And to continue to hold it today makes it lazy as well. But it's not nearly as horrendous as what King and Neal actually did.
King/Neal said pitchers shouldn't be eligible. And damnit, on their ballots (that particular year, in one case) they're not going to be. That simply can't be tolerated, and those gents should have their votes stripped* (and, I believe, a voter did have his RoY vote stripped when he expressed a similar sentiment about pitchers and the ROY).
* But that's just me, defending idiot sportswriters at all costs.
How does he know they're reasonably closely matched? He told us he can't compare them.
How does he compare position players who are reasonably closely matched?
To be clear, Bob Ryan didn't actually vote in 1999. But the margins between first, second, third and fourth place on the 1999 MVP ballot were 12 points, 13 points, and 0 points. 1999 was a tight year, and each of the top 6 finishers received first-place votes. A single honorable mention taking up a slot could have changed somebody's position, hypothetically or perhaps in fact that year. Two or three tips o' the cap could have changed the winner's position. And of course, ignoring one of the top six finishers as if he were ineligible certainly affected the result.
In a world where A-Rod gets media grief (or is defended) for the unwritten rules violations of saying "Mine" or jogging across a mound, it's a joy to watch writers ignore plainly written rules on a yearly basis. Don Larsen and Roger Maris stay on the HoF ballot 15 times longer than Lou Whitaker or Kevin Brown despite the explicit voting instruction that single-game accomplishments are not to be considered. The Hall's character clause is the key to voting, but only on Tuesdays, Fridays, and alternate St. Swithun's Days, and only for certain infractions. Overseas players did well in the Rookie of the Year vote until it was abruptly decided, "well, enough of that crap." MVP candidates from division winners consistently get an electoral bump despite the explicit voting instruction that the league standings should not be a factor. And pitchers should never be MVP, despite the explicit instruction that they can be-- a position advanced by numerous writers who refuse to put a pitcher on their list as an abiding, ironclad principle, except once in a while, like when the performance is so historically surpassing that it simply cannot be ignored except by two guys, or when the Texas Rangers win the 1998 AL West.
It's why we shouldn't take these awards any more seriously than the voters often do. I enjoy examining the process and the details for entertainment's sake, but at the end of the day Justin Morneau is Art Carney in "Harry and Tonto," and Terry Pendleton is "The English Patient."
That's what I said. Post 34:
I can sort of kind of see this, but I'm mostly with Ray here. What's even worse than Ryan or King or Neal, is the guy in 2001 who said Ichiro is not a rookie (because of his playing time in Japan), and not eligible for the ROY. He put CC first, the only writer to do so, and then put Ichiro second.
Yes he does. He then says they shouldn't be considered for the award because he has no idea how to judge pitchers compared to hitters. He feels hitters have the MVP and pitchers have the Cy Young.
He is saying pitchers should not be eligible.
EDIT: Just want to be clear, I think Bob Ryan is completely wrong for doing so.
1) Comparing hitters to pitchers is difficult.
2) I am lazy.
3) Rather than attempt to compare pitchers to hitters I will just disqualify pitchers out-right.
4) Now I have to come up with a post-hoc rationalization for why I disqualified pitchers.
5) Ah, they don't play every game, while hitters do. That's the ticket.
Can't that line be read as allowing them to be considered, they just can't be the entire case? (which of course wouldn't justify voting for Larsen)
Yes, yes that's his position.
Yes, that's right too.
But he also recognizes that these positions are not the rules, and that pitchers are in fact eligible. And as such, he has to consider them when voting. That's where your Newton analogy fails. He may believe Newton should be ineligible, but he won't impose his eligibility guidelines instead of the body that governs the award. Neal/King did that.
3a) Except that I did not disqualify Pedro Martinez in 1999.
4a) Except for Pedro Martinez in 1999.
5a) Though I made an exception for Pedro Martinez in 1999.
He is being both irrational and dishonest.
In other words, he is a highly regarded sportswriter.
Naturally, as various HoF plaques make clear. But a Maris who hit 56 home runs in 1961 never would have hung on the ballot like he did, and obviously Larsen's voting record was some kind of group prank.
He has no idea how to quantify pitchers, so he chooses not to. There is nothing in the articles that Bob Ryan has written over the years that would indicate he would ever give a pitcher a spot on his MVP ballot. Except that one time where that guy from Boston did really well.
There is nothing in the article where he indicates he would not give a pitcher a spot on his MVP ballot. The entire column is about what the award SHOULD be, not what it is. The only ballot we know about is his hypothetical 1999 one. We don't know what his other hypotheticals look like, or what pitchers were excluded or included on those hypotheticals. That's you and Ray helpfully filling in the blanks for him - perhaps because he generally doesn't write about an award for which he doesn't have a vote and hasn't had for decades.
Except that he doesn't think they should be on them. If somebody can find some Bob Ryan "here is my MVP ballot" articles where he puts pitchers on the ballot, then I'll change my stance. But for now all I have to go on is his opinion that they shouldn't be considered, except when a pitcher from Boston has a great season.
Am I making an assumption? Yes. But I'm basing it off his own words. You're making an assumption too. That he would completely ignore his own thought process every year and put a pitcher on the ballot despite thinking they shouldn't be on there. I am willing to believe that Ryan would do that.
Well there's the article in question, the one I previously linked to from 1999, plus this one from 3 years ago and this one from 2006 that I was able to find. At least 3 times in the past 6 years he's written about the MVP vote.
With this argument being put forth by BBWAA members with regularity, why don't they just concoct another award for everyday players? Or change the rules for MVP? It's their own freakin' award.
Everyone compares pitchers and hitters. If you never compare pitchers and hitters, you aren't a baseball fan, and you certainly shouldn't be writing about professional sports for a living. The argument that he can't or won't compare pitchers and hitters isn't just something I disagree with, it's something that suggests he isn't close to qualified to doing his job well.
My guess is that Ryan has compared pitchers and hitters innumerable times in his career, and he has more than enough capacity to do it again, but he thought that this argument would be the best one to trot out to get hisself on talk radio in the 90s, and he's stuck to it as shtick ever since then. Modern baseball columnizing isn't really about having ideas or discussion, it's about making yourself the subject of discussion. Taking extreme and usually stupid positions is a key part of this, and it's what Ryan is doing here.
So instead of:I'm saying:
1) I want to be the subject of discussion on talk radio.
2) Everyone in Boston loves Pedro Martinez and wants him to win the MVP.
3) If I crap all over that position, regardless of my argument, I will be the subject of discussion on talk radio.
4) Come up with a vaguely plausible argument.
5) Trot argument out again the next time people are talking about a pitcher MVP candidate.
Because an award exists for pitchers, no such award (with prestige) exists for hitters.
Is it that common? It seems that there are some who feel this way but it doesn't seem to be a majority or at least frequently expressed opinion.
Eh. You're missing the back end of that. He also can't then logically tell if Manny or Jeter were more valuable than Kevin Appier. Why is it ok to declare all pitchers uneligible in that situation? Clearly dismissing all position players would be just as valid.
He wants to compare hitters to hitters in the MVP and pitchers to pitchers in the Cy Young. There's no sense in trying to find any rational thinking beyond that, because it doesn't exist.
I'm thinking of some notable examples: Milt Pappas and Frank Robinson, Ernie Broglio and Lou Brock ...yup, hitters are better than pitchers. That was easy.
I don't know what to think about Rusie for Mathewson.
As a Dodger fan, that makes me much happier about Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields.
Jesus Ray, do you ever read what's actually written, or do you just see what supports your myopic, moronic viewpoint? In no way am I defending Ryan's position, which I've made abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain. I've merely stated that the strictly hypothetical 5th-place "vote" for Pedro was not inconsistent with his position that pitchers should not be eligible for MVP. That's all. That's only a defense to someone who resides in Crazy Ass Ray Town, where, if you don't believe "All Sportswriters is Idiots all the Time" then you're clearly performing a digital handjob on the species.
Oh, and in case this wasn't clear from my earlier post, go #### yourself. Repeatedly. Preferably, with something sharp-edged and rusty.
But his position was that pitchers should not be eligible for the MVP because it is impossible to compare their value to that of everyday players. So there's no way he could possibly have been able to place Pedro anywhere on his ballot. (Or put any players at all on the ballot.) This has been explained to you, but you haven't acknowledged the point.
That said, I understand that we will not agree on this point.
So ####### what? Say I give you lists lists of cars, one that only gives horse power of the cars, and one that only gives weight, and ask you to pick the fastest 10 cars from the two losts with no other information. There is no way compare cars between the two lists, but for the point of the exercise, there is no justification for throwing out one list entirely.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main