He also has 40 steals to go along with those power numbers

This triple crown chase has been fairly quiet, especially given he is in a major media market - I guess largely due to his jumping his average recently thus it wasn't a season long chase. Of course, I'm on the east coast and cheer on an AL East team (Jays) so the NL gets very little coverage around here.

Well, if he gets the Triple Crown, he might get the MVP.

The Dodger's financial problems and non-contention probably don't help either. If he can pull it off-wow.

Wait, how the hell did I not know this was happening? Triple Crowns are awesome!

I guess the story is that Kemp wasn't all that close two weeks ago, and has closed the gap. Ok.

I guess the story is that Kemp wasn't all that close two weeks ago, and has closed the gap. Ok.

That's basically it. Someone pointed it out in the Dugout yesterday, and that was the first I'd heard. There really wasn't a Triple Crown pursuit until just recently. I hope he can pull it off.

It would lock down the MVP he's already earned.

If Kemp and Kershaw win it, will they be the first teammates as league MVP and Cy Young winner from a .500 team? How about the first batter/pitcher teammates as triple crown winners (BA/HR/RBI and W/ERA/K)?

My perspective could be off, but it seemed to me that Kemp's season hadn't gone unnoticed, even in the mainstream media. He clearly has vaulted himself into "small handful of MVP choices" with his Triple Crown surge. I can't see how he's not the frontrunner, unless writers decide it has to be someone from a postseason-bound team, like Braun. It's very possible the Dodgers take both the MVP and the Cy Young this season. And there's a chance they do it while taking both the hitter's Triple Crown and the pitcher's Triple Crown (W/ERA/Ks): how rare is that?

Edit: Coke to bobm

A 40/40 Triple Crown winner would be cool.

Hell, either alone is cool.

I know it's partially a function of how many AB he had last year, but it's fun to see Kemp go from leading the league in outs made last year to the incredible season this year.

yea, i can see how barry bonds' seasons weren't quite up to par with kemp's for a triple crown. all bonds could crank out were these:

.336, 46, 123

.328, 73, 137

.370, 46, 110

no variety there, nope.

Triple crowns are awesome. I'm 40 years old and have never seen one in real life. Go Matt Kemp!

First serious run at one since Dick Allen in 1972?

There've been only four years in which a batter and pitcher won triple crowns. Gehrig and Gomez (NYY 1934) were the only teammates.
Impressive in the realm of meaningless coincidence is that the previous year Jimmy Foxx and Chuck Klein won batters' triple crowns; it was the only time that there were two batters' crowns in the same year, and both were playing in Philadelphia.

Bonds is the pretty obvious comparison. Bonds or A-Rod.

I don't think that Kemp and Kershaw win the NL awards, because most writers would say, "If they have the best pitcher and the best hitter, why do they suck?"

Rooting for Kemp. And playing lots of games not just in LA but SF and SD where it is also not the best for hitters.

And I am also spending the weekend pimping real baseball articles versus the Moneyball bullsh*t that Repoz apparently is desperate to foist on the readers of BBTF. It's like the bad old days and all the "S" articles he would dig up from some half-witted professor at Podunk U who had some stuff he bought off some guy who knew these two other guys and he tested it and it caused rats to lose their hair and OHMIG*D WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS??!!

To h≪ with that nonsense

Let's celebrate baseball d*mmit

Enough of these b*tchy sportswriters and their bugs up their collective *sses

I'm with Buddy. You serious, Donny?

Take '96 - a 42 HR-40 SB season. 122 runs. 129 RBI's 150+ walks, .308 avg. Yeah, Bonds never had a season like Kemp's.

Good thing the player in question is racking up his stats in games that people care about deeply. Are the Dodgers playing their games in a warehouse? Are these simulated games? Nobody seems to care.

Kershaw's triple crown is tainted by playing against the Giants too often.

Kemp's triple crown would be more impressive because he plays against the Giants so often.

Didn't he break up with Rihanna over the offseason? Maybe he's using that as motivation for a career year.

Good thing the player in question is racking up his stats in games that people care about deeply. Are the Dodgers playing their games in a warehouse? Are these simulated games? Nobody seems to care.

Because games played before crowds that are smaller count for less!

Good thing the player in question is racking up his stats in games that people care about deeply. Are the Dodgers playing their games in a warehouse? Are these simulated games? Nobody seems to care.


Because games played before crowds that are smaller count for less!

Games that mean nothing in the pennant race count for less, yes.

So sorry that Kemp is playing on a non-contender. I know, "it's not his fault." Let's declare him MVP of the playoffs and World Series while we're at it. After all, it's not his fault his team isn't there.

Suppose Kemp wants to win the batting title. He sacrifices power for singles to do so. Doing this hurts his team. Do we care? No, because his team is out of it. Whereas if Braun did this in games that still matter it would be very wrong. Same as if Kemp wanted to bat from both sides of the plate, play all nine positions, pitch, bat leadoff so he can hit more HRs, or any number of ways that players change their behavior because the games no longer matter. What if Kemp had a suspension he was appealing that would run into 2012? Why would he want to serve the games then, when they matter again, instead of now, when they don't? Wouldn't that be selfish, or don't people care?

Jay Z, that's a pretty weird argument.

#21 is one of those posts where I check the join date of the poster.

I think a Triple Crown kinda trumps everything else for MVP voting.

#21 is one of those posts where I check the join date of the poster.

He is a Brewer fan. Oddly enough, I have a Brewer fan friend who also recently discovered that maybe the award shouldn't go to the best player after all ;-)

I think a Triple Crown kinda trumps everything else for MVP voting.

Yeah, I think they vote Kemp MVP if and only if he pulls it off.

Suppose Kemp wants to win the batting title. He sacrifices power for singles to do so.

He's tied for the league lead in homers and he's 2nd in batting average. He's not sacrificing ####.

Yeah, I think they vote Kemp MVP if and only if he pulls it off.

Not necessarily. I think the fact that there are five days left in the season and he's got a legitimate shot at the Triple Crown will elevate him on a lot of ballots. He's a realistic MVP candidate.

I think a Triple Crown kinda trumps everything else for MVP voting.

Except for a 56-game hitting streak, maybe.

Except for a 56-game hitting streak, maybe.

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it :)

But imagining what the frenzy would be if you had a season like 1941 happening with today's media is fun to think about.

Except for a 56-game hitting streak, maybe.

Nope, a 56-game hitting streak trumps a .406 average.

A 154 OPS+ from a middle infielder trumps a Triple Crown.

Suppose Kemp wants to win the batting title. He sacrifices power for singles to do so.
He's tied for the league lead in homers and he's 2nd in batting average. He's not sacrificing ####.

It's a hypothetical. It points out the difference between games that don't matter and ones that do.

I will reiterate that people need to understand this. Remember the stunts where Campaneris and Tovar played all nine positions? When Garry Templeton batted from the right side against right-handed pitchers so he could get 100 hits for each side? These are personal accomplishments that don't help the team and probably hurt it. Same as if a player was playing with an injury that would affect his play in the upcoming season because he would need time to recover from surgery. If the player just wants to rack up stats in the current season, even though it's contrary to the interests of the team, why is that a good thing.

Baseball is a team sport. It is not an individual competition. If someone wants to argue that Omar Moreno was a better player than Adam Dunn is, you are free to point out that what Dunn does helps more to win games, and pennants. Even if Dunn is less entertaining to watch than Moreno was.

Yes, players have hit leadoff in order to win home run crowns or achieve personal accomplishments at the end of the season. Presumably the team suffers, otherwise they'd do it all year. But no one cares, because the team is out of the race.

The reason you can argue that Dunn is better than Moreno is because of contribution towards winning. The logic of the statheads seems to be that Kemp's stats can be converted into Baseball Bucks, gold, or some sort of currency that has enduring value, when in fact his accomplishments evaporate at the end of the season. If contribution towards winning doesn't matter, then it's just an artistic evaluation, in which case people can prefer Moreno to Dunn with no counter-argument.

Yes, I am a Brewers fan. But I have consistently argued that context matters in MVP discussions. If Kemp was head and shoulders above the league, maybe I would vote for him, if I had a vote. He isn't. Suppose he hits 7 or 10 home runs in the last week. Still wouldn't vote for him. He made a big late season push... in games that meant absolutely nothing in the context of the team sport.

Even if context matters a bit (I'm not saying it does, but hypothetically) should it be enough to overcome a large lead in performance? And if it is, sorry - but baseball-reference has the most WAR from a player on a playoff team being Cliff Lee. I expect you to support his candidacy, if you're going to be consistent. And if Lee shouldn't count because the Phils ran away with it, then I expect you to support the best player on the wild card team.

Incidentally, Baseball ref has Kemp as heads and shoulders above Braun - 1/3 more WAR is a huge advantage.

He made a big late season push... in games that meant absolutely nothing in the context of the team sport.

But why did those games mean nothing? Not because of anything Matt Kemp did or failed to do, or any value he didn't contribute to the Dodgers' efforts this season. Those games meant nothing because of the value his teammates (collectively) failed to contribute. Your approach makes the MVP contingent upon the value of Ryan Braun and Matt Kemp (et al's) teammates, not on the value of Ryan Braun and Matt Kemp.

I'm actually a moderate on this issue. I disagree with those (if there are any) who think that a team's status as a contender is irrelevant. I believe team performance is mildly relevant, so that if two players are very close the question of whether one player's contribution led to team success functions as something of a tie-breaker in how I would rank them. Kemp and Braun aren't in that position -- Kemp's contributions have been far more valuable to the Dodgers, despite their inability to make good use of his efforts.

Nope, a 56-game hitting streak trumps a .406 average.

A 154 OPS+ from a middle infielder trumps a Triple Crown.

Yep. I was a year off with Ted's first Triple Crown. And '47 was the year his Triple Crown season wasn't enough to best DiMaggio for MVP.

Jay-Z,
The Dodgers end the season with three game against the DBacks. As you know, Arizona is chasing Milwaukee for playoff seeding. So, yes, these games very much matter.

From the MVP voting instructions:
"The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier."

#21 is one of those posts where I check the join date of the poster.

Saving everyone a click and some time...

Join Date - September 06, 2006 04:18 PM
Total Comments - 498

First serious run at one since Dick Allen in 1972?

Gary Sheffield had a pretty good run in 1992, but he wasn't in the running for the RBI title this late in the season. He won the batting title and finished two home runs and nine RBIs behind the leaders.

I guess I can't really root for this. First Triple Crown since Yaz, or first Mets' batting title ever?

Go Jose.

The point I made in #35, Jon Weisman expands upon:

...Even if you concede that this team was not going to go to the playoffs, the indispensable point is this: The Dodgers have had meaning all season as an opponent.

From April through September, the Dodgers played games that mattered because winning or losing had a direct effect on the pennant races. In addition to their own postseason dreams, there were also postseason dreams for their opponents. On Tuesday, San Francisco came to Los Angeles, having won eight games in a row in making a late run for the playoffs. With two out in the first inning, Matt Kemp singled and then scored a run off Tim Lincecum in what became a 2-1 victory that severely damaged their hopes.

Then, a day after the Giants beat the Dodgers to keep their hopes alive and a day before San Francisco had a showdown series with Arizona, Kemp went 4 for 4 with three doubles and a home run in a Dodger victory that was crushing for the Giants.

You want to tell San Francisco's fans that that didn't count?

(Italics in original)

Remember the stunts where Campaneris and Tovar played all nine positions? When Garry Templeton batted from the right side against right-handed pitchers so he could get 100 hits for each side? These are personal accomplishments that don't help the team and probably hurt it. ...If the player just wants to rack up stats in the current season, even though it's contrary to the interests of the team, why is that a good thing.

Wait, you're comparing playing all nine positions to possibly winning the Triple Crown? You're insinuating that Kemp's pursuit of the Triple Crown may even be contrary to the interests of the team?

You're insane, but then again, you'd have to be to argue that there's a position player in the NL who's more valuable than Matt Kemp.

Even if context matters a bit (I'm not saying it does, but hypothetically) should it be enough to overcome a large lead in performance? And if it is, sorry - but baseball-reference has the most WAR from a player on a playoff team being Cliff Lee.

Kershaw.

If Kemp's WAR doesn't count, Kershaw's wouldn't either. But yes, Kemp and Kershaw are first and second.

Take away those two players, and the Dodgers are competing with Cleveland for second worst team in the majors, instead of having a winning record.

Take away those two players, and the Dodgers are competing with Cleveland for second worst team in the majors, instead of having a winning record.

Cleveland?

Sorry, my bad. Minnesota, not Cleveland. That's what I get for trusting my memory on a Saturday morning, instead of looking things up.

Edit: Not an utterly random mistake. Cleveland is the team the Dodgers are currently closest to in record.

Oh, OK. I thought there was something about WAR I didn't understand. I'd better have another rum and Coke.

I don't think that Kemp and Kershaw win the NL awards, because most writers would say, "If they have the best pitcher and the best hitter, why do they suck?"

Matt Kemp has 9.6 WAR according to BB-Ref. The 2nd-best position player on the Dodgers (Jamey Carroll, believe it or not) has 1.5! Kershaw's lead at pitcher is slightly less impressive, 6.8 - 3.3, because Hiroki Kuroda's actually had a pretty decent season as their #2 starter (117 ERA+ in 196 IP). But the #3 pitcher on the Dodgers (Javy Guerra and Ted Lilly are tied) matches Carroll at 1.5 WAR.

Holy crap, is this the most top-heavy team ever?

Holy crap, is this the most top-heavy team ever?

I'd place the 1972 Phillies ahead of them.

Carlton's WAR was 12.2.

Next was Barry Lersch at 1.6.

Don Money was the top position player at 1.5

My first thought was either Ernie Banks era Cubs or Sammy Sosa era Cubs. It turns out the Cubs didn't get really bad until after Ernie's prime so that doesn't work. As for Sammy I forgot that WAR has never really liked him so his numbers were never really that high. Except for 2001 that is. That year he has an 11.4 WAR and the next closest positional player is Rickey Gutierrez at 2.6. The next closest positional starter that played the full season is Eric Young at 1.1. In between Rickey and Eric are five positional players that were either acquired during the season or were platoon players.

The pitchers were a tad better, which is why they won 88 games, with Lieber and Wood both having over 3 WAR.

Babe Ruth had a 10.6 WAR lead over the next-highest position player on the Yankees in 1923, for a 98-win team. Of course in 1884, Hoss Radbourne would have laughed at Ruth's performance.

Walter Johnson was fourth on the 1913 Senators in offensive WAR.

The fact that the Dodgers are so mediocre despite Kemp and Kershaw has to be quite the detriment to Colletti's stock. A half competent supporting class has the team in playoff contention. And on top of that he inherited Kemp.

He inherited Kershaw too.

But that Russian psychic said he was right for the team!

Wait, a player's GM is pumping up the season he is having? NO! HOW AWFUL! Lets get mad internetz! How DARE you, Ned Colletti!

Wait, a player's GM is pumping up the season he is having? NO! HOW AWFUL! Lets get mad internetz! How DARE you, Ned Colletti!

1. Why does he have to denigrate another player to do extoll Kemp?
2. Why does he have to denigrate the one player who pretty much put Colletti on the map to get a gm job to extoll Kemp.

If Kemp and Kershaw win it, will they be the first teammates as league MVP and Cy Young winner from a .500 team? (BA/HR/RBI and W/ERA/K)?

The last-place 1987 Cubs nearly went one better when Andre Dawson won the MVP and Rick Sutcliffe almost won the Cy Young.

From the MVP voting instructions:
"The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier."

That's true. I prefer the voting that was done in the 1950s-70s. It was and certainly should be possible to win MVP with a team out of the race. But the player has to be head and shoulders above the rest, like Banks in 1958-59, or have it be a weak year for MVP candidates on the good teams. like Sauer in 1952. Otherwise MVPs really were almost always on pennant or division winners or close seconds or thirds. Kemp's team is far enough out where I have to take the team into consideration, and he's not dominant enough to overcome that factor for me.

So I would vote for MVP for a player from an average or weak team, just not this time - for 1st. 2nd I guess, though I haven't tried to make any sort of ballot.

#21 is one of those posts where I check the join date of the poster.

Saving everyone a click and some time...

Join Date - September 06, 2006 04:18 PM
Total Comments - 498

Hey, this is fun!

Join Date - June 14, 2010 02:36 PM
Total Comments - 326

1952 wasn't a weak year for MVP candidates on good teams... Robinson and Joe Black come to mind. The voters just biffed it with Sauer.