Thread Options 
|
#248270 - 09/23/04 09:15 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
So, why did you have Bonds 5th if he is such a negative in the clubhouse, a bad fielder, and a liability to the team. This seems a little bit of a contradiction. How can someone who causes strife even be considered for an MVP, which is an award for more than performance? (I don't necessarily disagree with the negative influences, I just think his positive contributions outweigh his negatives.)
I didn't say he was the fifth most valuable player. I said he was the fifth best player at producing runs this season. Read the post again.
Quote:
As an aside, I have seen some great teams where it was not even the best statistical player on the team that deserved the MVP. A great leader can sometimes be more important than statistics.
Couldn't agree more.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248271 - 09/23/04 09:19 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
You just helped me make the point that Bonds is the best player in baseball and is deserving of the Most Valuable Player award this season.
It's all about "scoring runs" - Second in the NL with 120. Lead his team (801) - 15% of the total.
It's all about "driving in runs" - 13th in the NL with 99 RBI and nearly 200 less official at bats because he walks so many times. Leads the team (13% of the teams total - 757)
No, I didn't. If it is all about runs produced, then official at bats vs. plate appearances don't matter. If you want to talk about effectiveness when the player is in the lineup, a case could be made for runs produced per game, or per plate appearance, but not per official at bat.
At the end of the game, the scorekeeper doesn't say, "ok, let's see...the Giants scored 4 runs in 33 official at bats, while their opponent scored 5 runs in 42 official at bats, therefore I declare the Giants to be the victors!"
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248272 - 09/23/04 09:21 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, why did you have Bonds 5th if he is such a negative in the clubhouse, a bad fielder, and a liability to the team. This seems a little bit of a contradiction. How can someone who causes strife even be considered for an MVP, which is an award for more than performance? (I don't necessarily disagree with the negative influences, I just think his positive contributions outweigh his negatives.)
I didn't say he was the fifth most valuable player. I said he was the fifth best player at producing runs this season. Read the post again.
Quote:
As an aside, I have seen some great teams where it was not even the best statistical player on the team that deserved the MVP. A great leader can sometimes be more important than statistics.
Couldn't agree more.
Oops, I scan these posts. I thought you had him 5th in your list of MVPs.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248273 - 09/23/04 10:06 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
|
You seem to have a fixation on run production. Run production is still relative. And so is value. Look at the relative run production of your group compared to their temmates. There were four guys who had produced more runs than Bonds: Castilla, Pujols, Abreu, and Rolen. Each also contributed to a greater percentage of his team's runs. Bonds contributed to 12.6% of his team's runs, vs 14.1% for Pujols, 14.3% for Rolen, 13.56% for Castilla, and 13.9% for Abreu.
Discard Castilla right away - his team has a losing record.
Pujols and Rolen played together. They made roughly an equal contribution to their team's run production. And they had help from Jim Edmunds, who contributed to 12.5% of the Cards' runs (same as Bonds).
Abreu plays with Jimmy Rollins, who contributed to 12% of the Phillies' runs, and Jim Thome, who had a hand in 11.8% of their runs.
The next closest Giant to Bonds in contributing to their run production is Marquis Grissom, who has contributed to 9.8% of the Giants' runs. After that, the percentage drops off to 9.5% (Ray Durham) and a couple of guys @ 9%.
So Bonds contributes to 25% more of the runs the Giants score than any other Giant. And the other guys all had teammates who were close to them in run production, meaning that their teams would have more easily survived their loss.
And whether you like it or not, Joker, bonds is still within 20 runs of the best producers in the National League, despite having only 2/3 the number at bats. He's the most feared hitter in the game, and has been for the past four years. And over the last eight years, the Giants have played a total of 11 games where they had no chance to make the playoffs.
Are the Cards a better team? They're probably the best team in baseball. But that is another flaw in your argument that one of those other guys has been more valuable this year than Bonds. If he's not in the Giants lineup, they're not a .500 team. With him, they're again fighting for a playoff spot.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248274 - 09/23/04 10:18 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Look at the relative run production of your group compared to their temmates.
It's not my group. They just happened to be ahead of Bonds in the offensive statistic that has the most bearing on this award. I didn't say any of them should be the MVP.
Quote:
Each also contributed to a greater percentage of his team's runs. Bonds contributed to 12.6% of his team's runs, vs 14.1% for Pujols, 14.3% for Rolen, 13.56% for Castilla, and 13.9% for Abreu...The next closest Giant to Bonds in contributing to their run production is Marquis Grissom, who has contributed to 9.8% of the Giants' runs...So Bonds contributes to 25% more of the runs the Giants scored than any other Giant. And the other guys all had teammates who were close to them in run production, meaning that their teams would have more easily survived their loss.
This is good analysis. Much better that that OPS stuff.
Quote:
And whether you like it or not, Joker, bonds is still within 20 runs of the best producers in the National League, despite having only 2/3 the number at bats.
Pshaw. And you were doing so good. Official ABs don't matter. If he walks and scores, that is a run produced without an AB. Base it on plate appearances.
Quote:
If he's not in the Giants lineup, they're not a .500 team. With him, they're again fighting for a playoff spot.
This may be true. And if the Giants win the wild card chase, I think Bonds likely will be voted the MVP. But I think that's a mistake.
NOW. I will reveal my preference. Because he is the best defensive player in baseball, and is the best run producer in the NL this season, I would vote for Scott Rolen if I had a vote. Just my opinion.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248275 - 09/24/04 08:22 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
|
Want another amazing Barry Bonds stat? At age 40, he leads all leftfielders with 11 assists.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248276 - 09/24/04 08:28 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,181
Yinzerville, PA
|
Quote:
Want another amazing Barry Bonds stat? At age 40, he leads all leftfielders with 11 assists.
That's amazing, because at age 28 he couldn't throw-out Sid Bream (maybe the slowest runner ever in the major leagues) from deep short-stop.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248277 - 09/24/04 08:29 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Want another amazing Barry Bonds stat? At age 40, he leads all leftfielders with 11 assists.
Because his arm is so bad everyone runs on him. Bling pig, acorns. . .
[ed - obviously, this should read "blind pig", as you were not referring to a pig who records hip-hop.]
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248278 - 09/24/04 08:29 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Quote:
Want another amazing Barry Bonds stat? At age 40, he leads all leftfielders with 11 assists.
That's amazing, because at age 28 he couldn't throw-out Sid Bream (maybe the slowest runner ever in the major leagues) from deep short-stop.
[spit take]
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248279 - 10/04/04 03:13 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Where the offensive totals stand at the end...run production:
1. Pujols 210
2. Rolen 199
3. Abreu 193
4. Castilla 189
5. Bonds 185
6. Berkman 180
6. Cabrera 180
6. Drew 180
9. Helton 179
10. Rollins 178
Everybody that was set to pick Bonds earlier - does the fact that the Giants missed the playoffs change your vote?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248280 - 10/04/04 03:41 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
|
Not my vote - the Giants were in the race till the end. Without Barry, they're a sub-.500 team.
Pujols and Rolen each other and Jim Edmonds to carry the Cards. The Giants had no one else even close to that class. If they had, Bonds has 75-90 fewer walks, and has produced another 35-50 runs, and we're not even having this discussion.
There is no doubt the Cardinals are the best team. But you take Pujols, Rolen, or Edmunds away, and they're still an excellent team, and they probably still win the division.
Without Barry, the Giants are nowhere. He's the NL MVP, even if I think he's an arrogant SOB.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248281 - 10/04/04 04:20 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Good argument. By the way, will Bonds be the league's batting champion? He has less than 400 official ABs. I think you have to have 3 at bats per game your team plays (close to 500 for a season). I haven't heard this discussed.
As for the MVP still being on a team that doesn't make the playoffs, that's how Pujols got burned last year when he produced 218 runs compared to Bonds' 156. The Cardinals finished 3 games out, so he didn't count. Whatever - some of these unwritten rules don't apply equally.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248282 - 10/04/04 05:53 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,455
The Pennant Race
|
MLB.com lists Barry as the NL batting champion. The listing on their site says players must have "minimum of 3.1 plate appearances per game played." That would include the walks.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent opinions of my employer.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#248283 - 10/04/04 06:17 PM
Re: 2004 NL MVP
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Oh, I didn't know it was based on plate appearances instead of at bats. Fascinating...
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index