When are people going to stop reacting with indignation every time the BBWAA makes a bad decision? This one was particularly bad, but the appropriate reaction is to stop paying attention to MVP awards. It's like a vegetarian who insists on eating at McDonalds every day and complains about them serving beef.

This is amazing. Unprecedented, really… has a team’s third best player ever before “won” the MVP?

Mo Vaughn, 1995. Another joke selection which is totally indefensible.

Only in Saberville is the former true. In real baseball a guy with enough speed to steal 20 bases is a plus for his speed and a guy who is plus for speed is better, ceteris paribus than a guy who isn't. I understand I'm in Saberville, but it is what it is.

You're changing the subject. You can argue that his speed makes him more valuable (although there aren't too many places where that isn't doublecounting); you can't argue that his basestealing does.

When are people going to stop reacting with indignation every time the BBWAA makes a bad decision? This one was particularly bad, but the appropriate reaction is to stop paying attention to MVP awards. It's like a vegetarian who insists on eating at McDonalds every day and complains about them serving beef.

You're right. For such a 'team' game we crap on a lot about this junk way too much.

big, big ups to whoever voted hafner second. That takes a lot of balls.

I think the question of which decision was worse (Pujols getting robbed vs. Morneau not deserving it) comes down to a matter of perspective. If you care about the actual "award", then the AL was the bigger injustice. Any way you slice it, Morneau did not have a "mvp season". However, if you care about the individual players, then the NL is worse, b/c he had a "mvp season".

Morneau winning the MVP is like the perfect storm. 1) there were more deserving players on his team, 2) there were more (or at least equally) deserving players that are essentially just like him in terms of position/production, and 3) there were more deserving players at more demanding positions.

Christopher Cross, Grammy for Album of the Year, 1981

That's a good album. What would you have gone with?

#75 and #175 can't both be right, can they?

#75 seems to be referring to publicity, not voting.

Jethro Tull over Metallica Best hardrock/heavy metal performance.


Excellent call.

I mean, excellent example of a terrible call.

There are certainly plenty of players more deserving than Morneau, I'm not arguing with that. But the difference between the most deserving - Jeter, maybe? - and the winner is a lot smaller than it was in '99, when you had Pedro with one of the best seasons a pitcher has ever had losing because of one of the most mindbogglingly foolish voters ever, Jeter, who had a far better year than he did this year, Manny (165 RBIs), plus years from Alomar and Nomar that were just as good as Pudge. Since no one really had a great year, I don't mind an undeserving candidate receiving the award as much as I would have had if someone had really put together a great year.


Great point.

As a Twins fan, I'm just going to accept this MVP Award without question, objection, or complaint as a form of reparations from the BBWAA for the 2005 Cy Young Voting Massacre. Frankly, I would have preferred 3 (or more) consecutive Cys Young for El Presidente Santana, but because I can't turn back time, this award will have to do.

I feel the same way about Bell and Steib, especially so with Morris having won Cys himself.

And I hear the complaints against Bell over Trammell, even though the 87 Tigers represent the great baseball Satan for me. But don't bring up the last week to bring down Bell. Positional value is so much more effective than a perfect storm collapse/small sample size. Trammell gets hosed in HoF voting (same with his double play partner, too, IMHO) because of what A-Rod, Tejada, Nomar, and Jeter did to SS and what others did to 2B. I daresay it is comparable to McGriff and what came next. The 90s explosion of offense is going to make the 80s very underrepresented in the Hall.

I am still wondering why you guys are so sure Pujols was more valuable than Howard. Pujols had slightly better averages +6 OBA and +12 SA but Howard didn't miss three weeks and had 24 more total bases and 16 more walks. The "making the playoffs" doesn't work because the Cardinals won fewer games and made the playoffs because they were in a crappy division.

I'm ambivalent about Howard v. Pujols. Certainly, it's comparable to last year in the NL, only closer.

*****

The posts comparing Jeter to Guillen: Tejada's got an .878 OPS, and Michael Young was .814.

Now in RC/9 innings, Jeter does rank better than them.

And, Guillen is better defensively than either of them, plays in Comerica, and led a club picked to finish 4th into the playoffs. Next?

But don't bring up the last week to bring down Bell.

Don't need to - Trammell was clearly superior at bat, and in the field. Just thought the writers would have noticed George playing the last ten days of the season with his hands firmly wrapped around his own neck.

stanmvp48 Posted: November 21, 2006 at 07:55 PM (#2243483)

I am still wondering why you guys are so sure Pujols was more valuable than Howard. Pujols had slightly better averages +6 OBA and +12 SA but Howard didn't miss three weeks and had 24 more total bases and 16 more walks. The "making the playoffs" doesn't work because the Cardinals won fewer games and made the playoffs because they were in a crappy division

because the better rate stats bring albert to howards better counting stats. Then you consider defense, base running and 'clutchiness' and albert pretty much sales past the tie that they were in before you started that consideration.

Only in Saberville is the former true. In real baseball a guy with enough speed to steal 20 bases is a plus for his speed and a guy who is plus for speed is better, ceteris paribus than a guy who isn't. I understand I'm in Saberville, but it is what it is.

Corey Koskie once stole 27 bases to 6 CS. Dude wasn't fast at all.

I am still wondering why you guys are so sure Pujols was more valuable than Howard.

The difference in defense is huge.

from the wire story:

"After June 8, Morneau had the best batting average in the Majors (.362). In that stretch, Morneau also had the most hits in baseball (145) and the most RBIs in the AL (92). And it doesn't take much to link the Twins' turnaround to Morneau's emergence, as the club was 25-33 through June 7 before their going 71-33 the rest of the season, the best record in the Majors during that span."

I have no problem with people disagreeing with the choice, but the shock in here is baffling.
Do you guys really have so little understanding of what wins this award?
(not the same as what SHOULD win the award, necessarily).

It's a tight MVP race, and this guy had a huge 2nd half. So he gets picked.
Frankly, I'm surprised this collection of voters made it as close as it was. That, to me, shows that even though they had their favorite 'story' here, the fact that an longtime star SS had an excellent year tempted them to depart from the script. But nobody was willing to depart from it for a vote lower than 4th.

because the better rate stats bring albert to howards better counting stats. Then you consider defense, base running and 'clutchiness' and albert pretty much sales past the tie that they were in before you started that consideration.

"Clutchiness" "sales (sic) past the tie. What tie? howard's counting stats advantage seems to me to a lot greater than Albert's rate stats advantage. Would have been a bigger advantage incidentally if the morons didn't have him batting as low as 6th. Certainly not obvious.
Seriously, clutchiness is what the idiots will use to justify Morneau. Something like intangibles.

Trivia question: Which Cardinal team won more games. McGwires 1998 team or this year's.

I am still wondering why you guys are so sure Pujols was more valuable than Howard. Pujols had slightly better averages +6 OBA and +12 SA but Howard didn't miss three weeks and had 24 more total bases and 16 more walks.

Park factor trumped playing time, making Pujols the marginally more valuable hitter. And all the other aspects of the game fall in his favor.


It's a tight MVP race, and this guy had a huge 2nd half. So he gets picked.

He didn't even have a huge second half. He had a huge middle two months, and the team continued on its merry way when he fell back to earth. What's most infuriating is that these ####### are so lazy they can't even make sure the facts they cherry-pick match the phony narrative.

The more they give the MVP to the Dawsons and the Howards and the Morneaus and the Juan Gones and the Mo Vaughns . . . the more that happens, and the massive bias in favor of RBIs and sluggers continues to reveal itself, the more I marvel in my middle age at the brilliance that was Little Joe Morgan. That somehow he could shine so frigging brightly for two incandescent years in the mid-70s to overcome their blindness, and beat out a Luzinski and a Foster, is quite an astonishing thing.

Maybe, too, that spoiled me. I somehow thought that meant they could actually get this thing right more than once in a while, when all it meant was that even these dolts couldn't get those votes wrong.

Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption?

Oh, come on. This and all of the other movie comments. Oliver! beating 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Lion in Winter is much more ridiculous. In the other cases mentioned, the winning film was at least a good movie, though definitely not the best.

I'll also defend the selection of Christopher Cross in 1981. There were plenty of good albums that year. However, what almost everyone who objects to Cross winning is objecting to is the genre he comes from; they just don't think that soft rock, or adult contemporary, or whatever we're calling it, can be good enough to win. If you don't buy into that, it was a great choice. Name me another album released in 1981 that is probably the best album of its genre ever released.

Based on the Jeter praise, Carlos being completely left out of the discussion seems to me the biggest injustice.

Hey, there's a long tradition of deserving Tigers' shortstops not winning.

Hey, there's a long tradition of deserving Tigers' shortstops not winning.

And Mets' starting pitchers.

I thought that autographed Justin Morneau jersey would look good on my wall. Now it will look good on an ebay auction.

Plus, in a strictly utilitarian psychological way, would anyone be very happy if Jeter won? No, it would be handshakes and polite applause. With Morneau winning, you can be certain that the pabst blue ribbon will flow freely in Canada tonight. Plus, it made my day, so get off of my cloud.

The fact that people are posting past Oscar and Grammy winners as being 'wrong' says a lot about the audience, no? Seems like a cold and gray world..

That somehow he could shine so frigging brightly for two incandescent years in the mid-70s to overcome their blindness, and beat out a Luzinski and a Foster, is quite an astonishing thing.

And even then- George Foster publically complained about not winning in 1976- has a TEAMMATE every publically complained about losing an award to a teammate like that???

George thought he should have won because he lead the league in RBIS
Dave Parker complained quite loudly about losing in 1985, Cecil Fielder complained quite loudly a few times too, and Ruben Sierra complained for years about not winning in 1989.

All honestly believed that he deserved the MVP award (none actually did of course), and all recived support from writers and other players about their claim of being robbed- I remember particularly in regard to Ruben Sierra's loss (he finished 2nd in the MVP vote- and he probably was the 2nd best player in the AL that year- Parker/Fielder/Foster were not remotely the 2nd best players in the years they complained about)- many writers wrote articles saying that their fellow writers who'd picked Yount had blown it- that year's vote (which picked the right d*mn guy actually)- was very controversial amongst the mediots- by the next spring virtually every article mentioning Sierra, every sportscaster mentioning Sierra- also asserted that he'd been robbed.

Maybe, one of these years, the mediots will actually rise up and complain when the guy who should have won was robbed.

With Morneau winning, you can be certain that the pabst blue ribbon will flow freely in Canada tonight.

Do you really think we'd drink that...flavoured water...up here in Canada?

you can be certain that the pabst blue ribbon will flow freely in Canada tonight

I think you've got your blue beers mixed up...Labatt's Blue seems more likely.

This is a terrible decision. What is telling to me is that Stark wrote a column built around Mauer vs Jeter, and only tossed in Morneau on the side.

Labatt's, yes.
Plus, institutional legitimacy died with the 2000 election fiasco. Helter skelter, baby.

How can you guys forget the Grammys giving the first Heavy Metal award to Jethro Tull?

Probably because it's the Grammys...

big, big ups to whoever voted hafner second. That takes a lot of balls.

Cleveland's Jim Ingraham, who gets a testicular deduction for being Hafner's local writer.

The regning NBA, NHL and AL MVPs are all Canadian.

And about two months ago I predicted that Arod would finish in the top 15 and I was ridiculed on this very site. Apologies accepted.

I think Mike Piazza in 1996 was more of an injustice then this.

Dr Love Posted: November 21, 2006 at 10:35 PM (#2243594)

How can you guys forget the Grammys giving the first Heavy Metal award to Jethro Tull?

Probably because it's the Grammys...

see post 170....

###### STUPID ASS MOTHERDFUCKIN ####### SPORTASWRITERS DONT KNOW A GOODDAMMN THING ABOUT THIS ######## GAME. HOLY #### THEY SUCK AS HELL. FCUK YOU AAL SPORTSAWRITERS, WAY TO #### THIS ONE UP. STUPID #####, HE DIDNT EVEN SHOW UP FOR THE FIRST TWO MONTHS OF THE ####### SEASON. I CANT ####### BELIEVE THIS. ####.

The more they give the MVP to the Dawsons and the Howards and the Morneaus and the Juan Gones and the Mo Vaughns . . . the more that happens, and the massive bias in favor of RBIs and sluggers continues to reveal itself, the more I marvel in my middle age at the brilliance that was Little Joe Morgan. That somehow he could shine so frigging brightly for two incandescent years in the mid-70s to overcome their blindness, and beat out a Luzinski and a Foster, is quite an astonishing thing.

Was it easier because Morgan was a significantly better player than Jeter? Seems so from where I sit.