 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » mlb predictions
ME
March 26, 2004 at 01:24AM View BBCode
The award loses its meaning when it goes to inferior players. People 50 years from now will look and thing Miguel Tejada was the best AL player in 2002, and Vaughn was the best in 1995, when they clearly were not. Last year the voters got it right, they sometimes do, because the best player in the league is usually on a good team. As long as guys like Shannon Stewart and David Ortiz finish high in the voting it shows that many voters are clueless.
hobos
March 26, 2004 at 01:54AM View BBCode
ME, explain your mood. the brewers are 2-8 in their last 10 bringing them back to inferior status. the team with the best record is the Expos, much to your pleasure, i would assume
ME
Expos have simdynasty intelligence - screw left handers - they have not started a LHP in over 2 years.
March 26, 2004 at 02:16AM View BBCode
:D i need to change it then.:D:D:D:D:D:DExpos have simdynasty intelligence - screw left handers - they have not started a LHP in over 2 years.
dcluciano
As I've stated several times, there is no "correct" answer. I fully understand that you feel that the MVP should go to the best player. I just hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.
March 26, 2004 at 06:56AM View BBCode
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that when most people look at past MVP winners, they don't automatically assume that the player was the best in the league.As I've stated several times, there is no "correct" answer. I fully understand that you feel that the MVP should go to the best player. I just hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.
farfetched
March 26, 2004 at 07:21AM View BBCode
HAHA exactly.. . Sometime in the 40s, the Yankees' Joe Gordon was chosen MVP over Triple Crown Winner Ted Williams... :lol:
skierdude44
March 26, 2004 at 12:33PM View BBCode
well, no ME, people 50 years ago should look at the award and say that miguel tejada was the most VALUBLE player in the AL. best doesnt always=value. and arodtoo, what is this stuff about arod's clutch hitting? jeter has provided clutch hitting, arod didnt. to provide clutch hitting u must actually come close to winning and have a hit that put u over the top or hit well in the middle of a playoff race or in the playoffs, arod did none of those. and like farfetched said, most of his homers came in losing efforts, so if u are gonna argue clutch than i will point u to mr. clutch himself, derek jeter, or jorge posada for that matter who put up good numbers, emerged as one of the best defensive catchers, and helped carry a team in the middle of a playoff race with a bitter rival through the struggles of their best slugger giambi who had an eye infection for the first month or two of the season, through the injuries to mariano rivera, derek jeter, and bernie williams, and through the struggles of the bullpen. so i would vote for posada over arod last year too.
arodtoo
[Edited on 3-26-2004 by arodtoo]
March 26, 2004 at 02:18PM View BBCode
a-rod had clutch hitting, you don't have to have to be in teh playoff race to have clutch hitting, you can be in teh bottom of the 9th with 2 outs and a runner on 3rd and facing mariano riveriea, if you get a hit that is clutch hitting, and a-rod did a lot of taht for his team(i am not just talking about homers) i eman don't forget taht a-rod hits more than homers, he had 30 doubles, and 3 triples, and had 364 TB. A-rod came through in the clutch for his team, and actulaly they did better than everyone expected them to, they exceded expectatinos becasue of a-rod, I mean they won almost as many games as the angels, in a division that held the defending world champs, perenial playoff contender(mariners) and perenial playoff entry(A's), when you face that kind of talent finishing last is bad, it is teh degree of last taht counts, and the games they did win exceded expecations and that was due to a-rods overall play and leadership, therefore a-rod is the most valuable player[Edited on 3-26-2004 by arodtoo]
skierdude44
March 26, 2004 at 08:48PM View BBCode
yea but if u are a last place team, how many clutch oppurtunities do u either get, or convert on? not many. u could be a team that constantly loses by one run, then ur in need of a clutch player. if ur a team that is blown out alot than u never get a clutch oppurtunity. they were showing the clip from the alds in i believe 2001 on YES when i came home from school where the yanks were playing the A's and the ball was hit into right and shane spencer over threw both cutoff men and jeter raced over and flipped the ball to posada for the out to win the game. thats as clutch as it gets. thats in the playoffs, in newyork, playing for the yankees where u are expected to win, with the game on the line, playing against a great team. how clutch is it really if u are already hopelessly out of the race and u come up with a game winning hit or defensive play. it doesnt matter because in the long run it doesnt matter if u finished 62-100 or 61-101. the rangers did not exceed expectations because there really is no set number of wins that they are expected to get to, there are expectations for place. the rangers were expected to be in last and were in last. sure their are the over unders but those arent expectations, they are just rough estimates. im gonna argue that posada deserved the mvp more than arod did. he played in the nyc-yankee hype where every little detail is magnified 100 times. i remember they were under .500 in spring training and people were frieking out. his club suffered major injuries and where in a division with talent just as good, if not better than in the AL west. i mean take a look, boston is a division winner if they play in any other division, toronto has a star pitcher and a solid offense, baltimore can put the heat on u, and tampa has a lot of young talent. posada posted good numbers, played a very important defensive position (like arod) and emerged as one of the best defenders at that position, handled the pitching staff well, and came thru in the clutch and showed great leadership, all for a club that tied for the most wins in the majors despite the bullpen woes and lengthy injuries to key players.
arodtoo
March 26, 2004 at 11:01PM View BBCode
this last place team won a fair ammount of games, this last place team was actually in a fiarm amount of clutch games, probably more than KC, as Texas faced better opponents so the games were probably closer, not blowouts like KC against the tigers or indians. Posoda did a great job, and that is why he got some consideration, but the voters again looked at everything a-rod did, including stats, and decided he did more for his team, which was the right thinking
skierdude44
March 26, 2004 at 11:44PM View BBCode
yea that makes sense. i mean arod was on a last place team and posada carried a team that suffered lengthy injuries to allstar caliber players and had bulpen woes but still under his leadership and performance he lead his team to the best record in the league in a division that is just as hard if not harder.
arodtoo
March 26, 2004 at 11:46PM View BBCode
posada didn't carry his team, and the divison wasn't as hard. What about Giambi, or mussina, or pettite, i guess they didn't help. The division had 2 tough teams, and 1 semit tough team, but balt and Tampa were pushovers, and that makes the divison easier, West had no weak teams for texas to push around and pad stats
skierdude44
March 26, 2004 at 11:50PM View BBCode
yea, giambi who played through knee injuries and eye infections. he did have pettitte and mussina but no one is a one man team in baseball, and posada is partly responsible for pettitte and mussina's success. boston was better than anyone in the west (it pains me to compliment boston but i most speak the truth) and toronto was very good during the first half and had a great offense, one amazing pitcher, and a couple solid pitchers. baltimore was decent, not great but not a push over, and tampa has a lot of young talent. guys like baldelli, crawford, and huff are not push overs either. dont be fooled, tampa can give u a game.
arodtoo
March 27, 2004 at 12:13AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
yes but tampa, balt, and jays, are all worse than every team in the west.
arodtoo
March 27, 2004 at 12:14AM View BBCode
yes but tampa, balt, and jays, are all worse than every team in the west.
skierdude44
March 27, 2004 at 12:30AM View BBCode
hmm... i dont think the jays are. they were even with the angels last year IMO. i dont have the standings in front of me but just thinking about the talent they are pretty much equal. baltimore was just about as good as texas and tampa probably is too, just they are young and make mistakes sometimes.
arodtoo
March 27, 2004 at 01:11AM View BBCode
balt was nowhere near as good as texas, neither team had any pitching, but the rangers had amazing hitting. No compairison. The Jays and the Rangers were about equal
skierdude44
March 27, 2004 at 01:17AM View BBCode
u kiddin? jays were a hell of a lot better than the rangers. delgado, vernon wells, and josh phelps in that lineup makes it better than texas's. halladay alone wipes the floor with texas, then add a pretty good pitcher in kelvim escobar and they are alot better than texas. they were just about as good as anaheim, if not alittle better.
jojo888
March 27, 2004 at 01:22AM View BBCode
Yeah, but look at the Ranger's lilneup. They had Palmiero, A Rod, Blalock, Teixiera, J. Gonzales, and Carl Everett.
arodtoo
March 27, 2004 at 01:51AM View BBCode
okay, a-rod is better than delgado by far, palmiero is a bitless than wells, and blalok is better than phelps by far, and that doesn't even count gonzo or everett. Yeah the rotaion of the jays was better, but that doesn't make up for the hitting difference
jojo888
March 27, 2004 at 03:12AM View BBCode
The Jays rotaion wasn't all that spectacular anyway. Halladay was outstanding, but only Escobar was there to back him up. I'm sure I'm fogetting anotehr Jay's P and someone will have to correct me, but whatever.
dcluciano
Texas: .266/.330/.454 826 runs
5.67 ERA / 1.55 WHIP / 1.67 K/BB / 969 runs
Toronto: .279/.349/.455 894 runs
4.69 ERA / 1.42 WHIP / 2.02 K/BB / 826 runs
Toronto gave up a run less a game, which I'm sure doesnt surprise anyone.... but, they also scored more runs that the vaunted Texas offense.
In fact, Toronto had the 2nd best offense in the league, behind Boston.
[Edited on 3-27-2004 by dcluciano]
March 27, 2004 at 04:14AM View BBCode
Not sure how anyone can say that Texas was much better than Toronto.Texas: .266/.330/.454 826 runs
5.67 ERA / 1.55 WHIP / 1.67 K/BB / 969 runs
Toronto: .279/.349/.455 894 runs
4.69 ERA / 1.42 WHIP / 2.02 K/BB / 826 runs
Toronto gave up a run less a game, which I'm sure doesnt surprise anyone.... but, they also scored more runs that the vaunted Texas offense.
In fact, Toronto had the 2nd best offense in the league, behind Boston.
[Edited on 3-27-2004 by dcluciano]
ME
ERA of 5.06
allowed 867 runs, scored 836, pythagorean W-L 78-84.
March 27, 2004 at 07:10AM View BBCode
KC's pitching was crappyERA of 5.06
allowed 867 runs, scored 836, pythagorean W-L 78-84.