most fans over 35 probably don’t know what it means

You mean fans half your age.

Some of us have been adding on-base percentage and slugging percentage for years; we just didn’t call it by a particular name.

How many years, Murray? OPS has been around since 1984.

You mean fans half your age.

You misspelled "a third", Repoz.

And Chase Utley gets no love.

From the sports writers.

As a Phillies' fan, I watched a great number of games. This Ryan Howard MVP stuff really baffles me. He spent the first six weeks of the season under the Mendoza line. He hit .213 in August. Quite a few times he looked helpless flailing at breaking balls outside of the strike zone. And when he wasn't at the plate, he was contributing very little both on the basepaths, and in the field. Really, the only remarkable positive in his stat line is that he played all 162 games.

His September was nice. Thank goodness the Phillies were in a position to make a run and not too far back. Who put them in position to win in the first place? Largely Chase Utley, who had better hitting statistics, better fielding at a premium position, and who ran the bases. One month does not make an MVP, and while it was good it was hardly historic.

BBWAA = writer's association. Writers love stories. It's their job.

MVP = most valuable to the writers. Player who provides the best story.

MVP = Player whose season was the best story. Howard was better story than Pujols.

sh*t! I hesitated, but yet still clicked on the link, then of course read the article....and well you know what?

The article was the usual rubbish we get from this arsehole. I will never learn.
BTW Murray, I'm 43 and I know all about all these newfangled statistics.

Let me get this straight: stats don't matter, leading one's team to postseason glory with late-season stats does. Which is why Justin Morneau, of the 696 OPS Sept/October and sub-900 August, came a comfortable second in AL MVP voting while his Twins fumbled their chances at winning the division. He did beat out that dastardly teammate of his, Joe Mauer, who only OPS'd a pitiful .904 in September and October; but he did it as a catcher, and as we all know the catcher (much like the second basemen) must outhit the first baseman to be valuable.

The drivel written by Chass really needs to be called what it is: utter stupidity.

1. Nobody thinks the MVP is a "best stats" award; position matters, as does quality of defense at that position, as does playing time.

2. Even if people did think this were a "best stats" award, nobody would use OPS to measure that. Park adjustments matter, as does OBP vs. SLG, as does stolen bases, as does playing time.

3. What is with this lunacy of focusing on September stats, while ignoring that Howard had a freaking .287 on base percentage in June, which helped his team to a 12-14 record for that month?

4. What is with this nonsense of asserting that "most valuable" and "best player" are different concepts? Why are we looking at the quality of Howard's teammates (playoff team) rather than the quality of Howard? Put Albert Pujols on the Phillies instead of Howard, you Britney Spears of the sports world Murray Chass, and the Phillies will beat the Mets by more than 3 games. Put your most "valuable" player Ryan Howard on the Cardinals instead of Pujols, you K-Fed of a columnist, and the Cardinals finish even more than 4 games out of a playoff spot.

5.

If a player should be rewarded in the most valuable player voting for enabling his team to overcome his teammates’ performances,

Stop right there, Murray "not as bright as Jessica Simpson" Chass. The player shouldn't be.

It's not about "overcoming teammates' performances." It's about providing value to one's team.

6. OPS "a relatively recent term"?

7.

My own definition over the years has been to designate the player without whom his team could not have done what it did. That doesn’t mean a key player who suffers a disabling injury and misses half the season. It’s a player whose contributions are critical to the team’s success. The more contributing players on a team, I have always felt, the less valuable each one is.

To the extent one can parse this, wouldn't that make Howard even less valuable, since he had "more contributing players on his team"?

8.

So as good a season as Pujols had and as much as he meant to the Cardinals, they and he fell short. Howard and the Phillies did not. You want a player of the year? Pick Pujols. You want a most valuable player? Hail Howard. Too bad too many voters might not have understood the difference.

It just makes no sense. If Pujols was "player of the year," then by definition he was more valuable than Howard, and you'd rather have Pujols on the Phillies than Howard, and if you'd had Pujols on the Phillies rather than Howard, the Phillies would have finished even further in front of the Mets.

And the Cardinals even further back.

This is kind of a weird dynamic: Pujols won the MVP, and yet we're seeing countless columns from voters who think that's an abomination. Are all the guys who voted for Pujols just lying low?

In September, when the Phillies won the division title,

They did? Their other four winning months didn't help?

Howard’s OPS was 1.274 to Pujols’ 1.129.

What about Cole Hamels, who had a 2.84 ERA in September, and played well in five months of the season, not just three?

What about Chase Utley, who hit better than Howard, ran the bases better, and played better defense at a more difficult position?

With monthly season highs of .352, 11 homers and 32 r.b.i., Howard powered the Phillies to a 17-8 September record that brought them from one game behind the Mets to three games ahead.

Wait a minute - I thought Chass knew about that new OPS stat. Why is he citing triple crown numbers?

Why is he citing stats at all, for that matter, when this is not a "best player" award?

Many non-voters mistake the m.v.p. for player of the year. There’s a difference in the two distinctions.

Does anyone else get tired of this argument? It seems pretty clear that the entire point of the award is to the honor the best player in the league, with the name "Most Valuable Player" just being choosen for being snappy. Is it really an honor to win a "Most [Insert Definition Here] Award"?

I feel the same about the Hall of Fame. The intent was the honor the best players, with the name just being snappier than "Hall of Great Baseballers", but people still pull out the "Well, we are looking for the most "famous" players" argument?

Writers voting for m.v.p. consider a player’s OPS, but they don’t automatically give the award to the player with the highest four-digit, one-decimal-point number.

This is true. They automatically give the award to the player with the highest three-digit, zero-decimal-point number (because decimal points are for nerds).

Of course, this just applies to a good amount of the writers (far too many, though), as evidenced by the correct player actually winning the award.

That’s because the award goes to the player who was most valuable, not the player with the best statistics.

And we all know RBI isn't a statistic.

This is kind of a weird dynamic: Pujols won the MVP, and yet we're seeing countless columns from voters who think that's an abomination. Are all the guys who voted for Pujols just lying low?

I suspect it has to do with two things:

1. The folks who supported Albert Pujols' for MVP, inside and outside the BBWAA, don't feel the need to write a column that the BBWAA got it right. Only those who are outraged at the outcome are putting fingers to keyboard.

2. Repoz's tendency to link to those types of columns that will get the biggest rise out of us.

Does anyone else get tired of this argument? It seems pretty clear that the entire point of the award is to the honor the best player in the league, with the name "Most Valuable Player" just being choosen for being snappy.

It's even simpler than that: "most valuable" means the player who provided the most value. The best player (*) is the player who provided the most value. The value provided by his teammates is irrelevant to the value he provided.

It's not the Most Valuable Triple Crown Hitter In September For A Team That Jumped Into First Place In September And Made The Playoffs By The Least Amount award.

(*) And it's clear that when sane people talk about "best player" in an MVP context, they're taking into account playing time. Nobody thinks that Cameron Maybin, who hit .500 in 2008, was in the running for MVP.

And nobody sane thinks that CC Sabathia or Manny Ramirez were.

I feel the same about the Hall of Fame. The intent was the honor the best players, with the name just being snappier than "Hall of Great Baseballers", but people still pull out the "Well, we are looking for the most "famous" players" argument?

Here too, the argument is even simpler: the Hall of Fame is meant to confer fame, not reward it.

There’s a difference in the two distinctions.

Listen you're an old fart who was taught proper English! There can be a distinction between the two or a difference between the two but a difference between two distinctions requires you to make two comparisons then look at the difference between the two comparisons.

And, by the way, apparently most of the voters also mistook the MVP for the player of the year. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a higher percentage of the voters selected Pujols than would have the non-voters.

Oh god, that was a horrible sentence. I too am an old fart but I was taught by wolves!

you Britney Spears of the sports world Murray Chass

Chass doesn't wear underwear? Eww.

It's even simpler than that: "most valuable" means the player who provided the most value. The best player (*) is the player who provided the most value. The value provided by his teammates is irrelevant to the value he provided.

The problem is that "value" is open to interpretation. I happen to largely agree with your definition; I might look at team finish as a tiebreaker. If somebody else thinks "value" is defined by significant contribution to a winner, telling them otherwise is like saying your favorite color is better than theirs.

There's an argument to be made that, for example, a 9.5 out of 10 player on a team that narrowly won its division was more "valuable" than a 9.8 player on a team that was in fourth place. Even if I didn't see it that way myself, I could respect the vote. In the case of Howard and Pujols, there are too many problems (Pujols runs laps around him, teammate Utley was better, etc.).

Remember when Shannon Stewart got three 1st-place votes in the 2003 AL voting, finishing 4th overall? That's my favorite recent example of voters looking for "value" in all the wrong places.

Not to pile on, but Chass also lies and claims that Howards OPS was .970, when it was in fact .882.

.970 is Howard's career OPS.

Is Utley going to go down in history as one of those great underappreciated players? He's off to a good start. This probably stems from:

1) he's one of those players who does everything well but nothing spectacularly (well, his defense is pretty spectacular at times, I guess), meaning, as Bill James observed, that he's likely to be underrated, and

2) his penchant for cursing on network TV aside, he seems like a down-to-earth, mild-mannered guy, dull as a doorknob, no source of quotes or anything. Compared to the gregarious Howard (and I'm not saying that as a critique of Howard, his personality is great and he's a fantastic representative for MLB), who is out there helping out the community and eating fresh, there's sort of no contest in the "best story" department on his team.

The idea that Utley was only the 14th most valuable player in the NL this year is absurd. I think every single Phillies phan who has chimed in on this MVP thing has noted that Utley is clearly a better player than Howard, so it's not a case of the "fans choosing" either really. He's probably destined for a Craig Biggio-type career (they even both have a penchant for the HBP.)

The PBP's say Utley's D is good, but apparently he doesn't generate many flashy Web Gems. I've heard that scouts actually only think he's middling, which suggests that if he is getting to so many more balls than average, either he or his coaches are very good at positioning.

Well, if it's any consolation, writers like Chass are like the Republican base: They're dying off a lot faster than they're multiplying, and are fast becoming nearly as irrelevant to the conversation.

What I find odd is that about 35-years ago Allen Barra and George Ignatin started writing their "By The Numbers" column for the Village Voice...where they first threw out their "SLOB" numbers.

You would figure...with Murray Chass being such a stringy-haired rad back in the day, that he would have stumbled upon BTN buried in the back of the Voice (right next to a Titus Oaks record ad!).

Guess not.

With all due respect, does anybody here think that the Murray Chass's and Thomas Bosswell's of the world will "get it"?

If not, why not let them out to pasture quietly and simply not pay attention to them?

(i.e., treat them like Phil Pepe - a completely irrelevant old-timer).

In September, when the Phillies won the division title,

They did? Their other four winning months didn't help?

Look, it's just the same idiot logic that selecting K-Rod for AL MVP is, or touting closers generally: the notion that what happens last is more important, that it's more valuable to put the finishing touches on than to do all the rest of the work to get to that point.

The folks who supported Albert Pujols' for MVP, inside and outside the BBWAA, don't feel the need to write a column that the BBWAA got it right. Only those who are outraged at the outcome are putting fingers to keyboard.

Yup. Which is something important to remember in the wake of all these columns - as tempting as it might be to bash the MSM as a monolithic entity, the BBWAA did in fact vote the award to Pujols.

Oops, there I’ve said it. OPS. It’s a relatively recent term that still has to be explained because most fans over 35 probably don’t know what it means.
57 here, and I not only know what OPS is, I even know some of its flaws. So there!
The willful ignorance... the loss of desire to learn... those things always get to me. I try my damnest to live the spirit of the Who's credo "Hope I die before I get old"

Yup. Which is something important to remember in the wake of all these columns - as tempting as it might be to bash the MSM as a monolithic entity, the BBWAA did in fact vote the award to Pujols.

But that's like concluding that every member of the Phillies is a good player because the Phillies won the World Series.

Some of those who cast ballots here -- a lot of them -- didn't have the foggiest clue.

By beef with Chass is different. He didn't reply to my email from last week! Seriously, I had a question about baseball biz of the 1970s (something he does know stuff about) and he hasn't replied yet.

BTW, it's comments like these that make me suspect that I rankle some within the sabermetric community. They're not acidic enough towards their enemies to satisfy them.

The interesting thing about all the old-school writers screaming about the MVP award being decided by "stats" is that Ryan Howard's (apparently the old-school guy's choice) MVP case is pretty much entirely dependent on his RBI totals.

Do they not realise that RBIs are a stat?

With all due respect, does anybody here think that the Murray Chass's and Thomas Bosswell's of the world will "get it"?

Boswell is someone who once upon a time really did seem to "get it", and once upon a time Chass was one of the few of his generation who seemed likely to "get it".

Well Chass never got it and Bos lost it.

This is kind of a weird dynamic: Pujols won the MVP, and yet we're seeing countless columns from voters who think that's an abomination. Are all the guys who voted for Pujols just lying low?

Pre-vote, the vast majority of the columns I read from BBWAA writers were in favor of Ryan Howard- I pretty much assumed Howard would win, Pujols would finish 2nd, and Primates would go wild. I was pleasantly surprised by the result.
However, the pro-Howard contingent- well they thought Howard was going to win- their pro-Pujols brethen were so much quieter than they- the pro-Howard Luddites assumed they were the majority. They saw it as an impending victory against the sabr heretics (that's why so many sputtering pro-Howardites are throwing out acronyms like Vorp and OPS left and right-

They see this vote as 2 things
1: The wrong guy won- they honestly believe Howard should have won- and they do so as passionately as the Sabr community thinks Pujols was the man.
2: The enemy has won a battle and is infiltrating the ranks- make no mistake many older BBWAA members see the statheads as mortal enemies (juts as many scouts do)

Do they not realise that RBIs are a stat?

I can't find it- but I saw a blog entry from one of these old timers saying that "no" RBIs are not a stat- RBIs are runs, and runs are things that actually happened in a game and led to wins (and wins for pitchers are not stats either- you get the drift)- stats are things like Vorp and Ascap (I think he wrote Ascap- can't find the blog- maybe he's a frustrated songwriter and it was a Freudian slip)... made up things, HRs, RBIS, W-L, those things are "real"

With all due respect, does anybody here think that the Murray Chass's and Thomas Bosswell's of the world will "get it"?

Wait - we're putting Boswell on the same level as Murray Chass? God that's depressing. Boswell is not only one of the best sportswriters of his generation, but for quite a while he was on the cutting edge of this stuff. Going by his column this week, however, as the edge passed him by, he responded by regressing away from where he had been.

Chass's piece is a cause for an indifferent shrug. Boswell's article is a reason to mourn.

Wasn't Chass's brief basically baseball off the field anyways? When I look up old stories of his, they're usually about Marvin Miller or George Steinbrenner or Bowie Kuhn.

Wasn't Chass's brief basically baseball off the field anyways? When I look up old stories of his, they're usually about Marvin Miller or George Steinbrenner or Bowie Kuhn.

And those were good. He was one of the very best at covering the labor issues.

Wait - we're putting Boswell on the same level as Murray Chass? God that's depressing. Boswell is not only one of the best sportswriters of his generation, but for quite a while he was on the cutting edge of this stuff. Going by his column this week, however, as the edge passed him by, he responded by regressing away from where he had been.

Chass's piece is a cause for an indifferent shrug. Boswell's article is a reason to mourn.

Is it better to have been senile from birth, or to slip into it in your early fifties?

Dag Nabbit, I think of Boswell as representing a slightly different point of view than Chass, which is why I referred to the Chass's and the Boswell's.

But that's like concluding that every member of the Phillies is a good player because the Phillies won the World Series.

No Ray, that's actually the exact opposite. Haplo is saying that the tendency here to bash some monolithic BBWAA for its collective stupidity is wrong, as evidenced by the fact that its members actually got the vote right.

I love this from Chass. He starts off pointing out the distinction between "best" and "most valuable."

Many non-voters mistake the m.v.p. for player of the year. There’s a difference in the two distinctions.

OK, so what do people look at when they want to decide who the player of the year is?

If the award were for player of the year, the voters would simply look at the statistics and see which player drove in the most runs and hit for the highest average or had the highest OPS.

Thanks, Murray. So we should look at stats for player of the year, but not to tell us who's most valuable. Right?

Oops, there I’ve said it. OPS. It’s a relatively recent term that still has to be explained because most fans over 35 probably don’t know what it means. It happens to be one of the acceptable new statistics because it easily demonstrates a player’s offensive value.

Wait, what? World colliding! I thought statistics only told us who the best player was, not who the most valuable was. But now you're telling us that stats can measure a player's value?

what kills me is that Chass and Boswell decry all the "advanced" stats that suggest Pujols is the better player -- and yet even the most basic stat there is, the first one you looked at on the back of the baseball card as a kid, shows it's not even close.

Pujols batted .357; he batted .350 before the break and .366 after. Howard hit .251, and .234 for the entire freaking first half. .234 -- that's a 1970s shortstop. To make a comparison both would know: That's Belanger territory, and without the GG defense. And sorry, those 81 or so games matter more than 30 in September.

Bos goes on to say that all the singles and walks are overrated (really, he did!). Fine. So let's use slugging percentage, not an "advanced" stat either. Pujols slugged .653, and over .700 after the break. Howard slugged .543 for the year, .593 after the break. 110 points is a significant difference.

Rant over. Point is, even by the most basic metrics -- batting average and games played -- you still can't construct a rational argument that Howard was more valuable.

(edited for spacing and an omission)

RBIs are runs, and runs are things that actually happened in a game and led to wins (and wins for pitchers are not stats either- you get the drift)- stats are things like Vorp and Ascap (I think he wrote Ascap- can't find the blog- maybe he's a frustrated songwriter and it was a Freudian slip)... made up things, HRs, RBIS, W-L, those things are "real"

And? You don't see a difference between those two things?

And? You don't see a difference between those two things?

Certainly those are real runs/wins. The quibble is over the accounting proceedure used. Let's suppose that:

* Player A walks.
* Player B singles, moving Player A to third.
* Player C flies out, scoring Player A.

Player A is credited with a run. Player C is credited with the RBI. Player B got an honest-to-god base hit, but gets credited with nothing. But Player B was probably the most valuable in the whole sequence.

Yes, RBIs correspond almost perfectly with team run scoring. That's because, with a handful of exceptions (like a run scoring on a double play), the official scorer is mandated to assign an RBI for every run scored. It's a function of how the books are kept; it doesn't make it "real" in the way that we're talking about here.

Player A is credited with a run. Player C is credited with the RBI. Player B got an honest-to-god base hit, but gets credited with nothing. But Player B was probably the most valuable in the whole sequence.

I remember an article in Baseball Digest 25 years ago or so mentioning that. I think the author wanted to create a new stat like assists to cover that situation. It may have been before I ever heard of Bill James and made me more open to the stuff he said in his Abstracts.

And? You don't see a difference between those two things?

The problem is that its a dishonest argument. RBI, runs, etc. do measure what actually happen. But batting average and ERA do not. Yet there is no argument from Chass or his ilk that these stats should be ignored. Rather, Chass actually uses Howard's September batting average to support his argument.

You know, I might be able to respect the opinions of these guys, despite disagreeing, if they applied the same definition of value every year. However, every year, they argue for a different definition of valuable. Last year, Ryan Howard easily had a better season than he did this year (plus he also had a great September then). That's indisputable. What was different? THE STORY. "Struggling slugger goes bananas in September, carries team into playoffs" = great story. "Slugger plays consistently well through year" = lame story. But 2007 had a good story..."Shortstop promises playoffs and delivers." So, they construct a definition of valuable that makes Jimmy Rollins the most valuable...using defense, leadership, and baserunning to support their argument. This year, they ignore all that, because there's a better story. So, this year, value means RBIs and September performance.

It's not a case of them disagreeing with us on what value is. It's that they DON'T KNOW what value means. They change their definition of it to fit who they want to give the MVP to (aka the guy with the best story).

The problem is that its a dishonest argument. RBI, runs, etc. do measure what actually happen. But batting average and ERA do not.

Also as 42 and 43 point out- an RBI is almost like an accounting entry.
C gets the RBI, B doesn't.

Baseball could have decided to count every time a batter advanced another runner- but no, sometimes they count them- Sac bunts, RBIs, but other times, like the example in 42- they didn't and don't count them.

Baseball stats have and continue to evolve- back in the 1890s for a time they counted any extra base (going from 1st to 3rd on a single) as a stolen base- that old "rule" (accounting rule) became a topic of conversation when Brock broke Cobbs' record- he then said he wanted Hamilton's record- but many MSM type said, "why? Hamilton's record is fake, taking an extra base was counted as a SB back then- they didn't know what they were doing"

Personally I think the old rule is better and more informative than the modern one in many respects- it gave a more complete picture of a player's baserunning- if they counted all baserunning outs too that would be better yet.

WRT RBI- why don't you get one if you hit into a DP, but the runner scores? Because you are acknowledging that outs are bad, two outs are really bad- but if so, why not count all outs made by a batter and put that on the back of his baseball card- nope the only outs that were shown were Ks (well you could always subtract hits from Abs, but what kid looking at the back of a card does that?).

Guys like Chass grew up with Avg-HR-Rbi, they know what those #s mean, they also "know" that any different way of accounting for baseball numbers employed before AVG-HR-RBI were inferior and/or wrongheaded- and any new ones are incomprehensible and therefore wrongheaded. You know Garvey is a .300 hitter and therefore better than Wynn a .250 hitter- and "knowing" that becomes subconscious- Garvey is better than Wynn, no thinking person could disagree. Howard beat Pujols 2 out of 3 (HR + RBI to Pujols Avg), Howard is therefore better.

Was the hulabaloo for Andre Dawson this loud?

Howard's team won, he hit the most homers and batted in the most runs and he finished "strong". To me, that checks every sportswriter cliche as to what an MVP is - when his team needed him most (in September) Howard carried the Phils to the playoffs. It's a basic and flawed argument, but it gos back to what shock posted earlier - Howard was the better story.

In fact, the local Philly media, when not chastising the Iggles for the OT mess, played out the second place finish in much the same fashion - and ignored all other Phillies in the process. Utley was as deserving, but lacked the counting stats and therefore gets swept under the rug even by his own media.

Was the hulabaloo for Andre Dawson this loud?

Suffice to say that people frequently cite the Dawson vote over 20 years later.

Suffice to say that people frequently cite the Dawson vote over 20 years later.

The intertubes would have exploded had they been around in 1987 when Dawson won the MVP.

Baseball stats have and continue to evolve- back in the 1890s for a time they counted any extra base (going from 1st to 3rd on a single) as a stolen base- that old "rule" (accounting rule) became a topic of conversation when Brock broke Cobbs' record- he then said he wanted Hamilton's record- but many MSM type said, "why? Hamilton's record is fake, taking an extra base was counted as a SB back then- they didn't know what they were doing"

There's a thing called a dot. It’s a relatively recent term that still has to be explained because most people who don't use the internet don’t know what it means. It happens to be one of the acceptable new forms of punctuation because it easily demonstrates the end of a sentence.

But it’s not really a new form of punctuation. It’s just a new name. Some of us have been using dots for years; we just called it a period.

But I digress. Writers posting on a blog consider using a period, but they don’t automatically use it when a complete thought has been expressed. That’s because the punctuation that should be used is the one that is most valuable, not the punctuation that is best.

I normally don't read these kinds of columns, so I have a question. Is the Player of the Year/MVP distinction a common gambit in these arguments?

Also, I agree with TR in 43. The writers root for the story; hell, some of them likely vote based on creating a story. Pujols, who is great every year, says little, and stays out of trouble, is not a story--sort of like Henry Aaron must have been in in his heyday from '57 to '69 or so.

Was the hulabaloo for Andre Dawson this loud?
The intertubes would have exploded had they been around in 1987 when Dawson won the MVP.

Ehh, I'm not so convinced. No, the hullabaloo was not very big but of course it was a different era in terms of saber-love and the internets.

Dawson gets cited a lot now because it is one of the worst saber performances to win an MVP. But there really weren't any particularly good candidates that year. I think most of the saber-types lean towards Ozzie Smith but you need a good bit of context and fuzzy defensive value to put a 303/392/383 line up at the top. Jack Clark and Eric Davis had outstanding seasons but missed a full month -- I know I dock MVP candidates heavily if they miss that kind of time.

Strawberry, Gwynn, Murphy and Clark are probably the guys I'd have been most likely to vote for.* So of course those guys finished 5th, 6th, 8th, and 11th. 1987 may well be the BBWAA's worst overall vote but I don't see it as a year where someone got robbed.

The big thing this year is that Howard is simply so far short of Pujols' performance that it's ridiculous. Had Pujols not existed, then the NL MVP race looks a lot more like the AL one this year and you wouldn't have so many people worked up about it.

* did you actually believe that? Are you suckers? I'm a Cub fan and a Dawson fan -- I'd have voted for Dawson ten times. And I hated Strawberry and Clark.

Well shoot, I am 75 and these "numbers" are fine with me. The 21st century is a good place to be Murray. Come on in.

And as a side note, I keep reading these snide comments about Republicans.

Any time someone wants to hitch up their pants and actually speak TO a GOP member let me know. We ain't all Gov. Palin or Sen. Frist.

Some of us have a clue......

And as a side note, I keep reading these snide comments about Republicans.

That's mostly Andy. He is really making sure he enjoys this election. I think he is handling it like people handle holiday diets: he'll stop after either New Year's or Inauguration Day. ;-

Any time someone wants to hitch up their pants and actually speak TO a GOP member let me know. We ain't all Gov. Palin or Sen. Frist.

Well, he said "the base"--not all of you. And, as I always say every time this comes up, no one is stopping the non-existent BTF Republicans from posting on the political threads.

RR:

I have. But since my posts are ignored I am not going to flail away in some sorry attempt to draw attention.

And whatever my political beliefs I wish the best for the President-Elect. The country needs a real leader/miracle worker....

I have. But since my posts are ignored I am not going to flail away in some sorry attempt to draw attention

Well, I suspect if they are ignored it is because they are not inflammatory or snide. But I don't recall your posting all that much in the big blowout threads about the war, Bush, Jeremiah Wright, Palin etc.

(Walt Davis) Strawberry, Gwynn, Murphy and Clark are probably the guys I'd have been most likely to vote for.*

And Eric Davis? And Tim Raines?

(Personally, my opinion at the time was leaning toward Gwynn - and I'm a Cardinal fan.)

And Eric Davis? And Tim Raines?

Ahem :-) "Jack Clark and Eric Davis had outstanding seasons but missed a full month -- I know I dock MVP candidates heavily if they miss that kind of time."

Raines is a good option but hard to choose him over Gwynn who had the higher BA, higher OBP, nearly equal SLG, higher OPS+, more steals (worse percentage), nearly as many runs, 18 more games played and Gwynn won a gold glove.

So there weren't really any stand-out candidates. There were about 10 guys more valuable than Dawson but those 10 guys were all about equal.