 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Palmeiro suspended
hobos
Palmeiro suspended
August 01, 2005 at 04:53PM View BBCode
The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball today announced that Rafael Palmeiro of the Baltimore Orioles has been suspended for 10 days, effective today, for violation of Major League Baseball's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program
whiskybear
Then again, so has the Leader of the Free World.
August 01, 2005 at 05:09PM View BBCode
And just days after collecting hit No. 3000. He's got the resume, but does this keep him out of the Hall? As [url=http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2121659]this article[/url] points out, he did lie to Congress.Then again, so has the Leader of the Free World.
FiveToolPlayer
Palmeiro didn't deserve to get in anyway. He deserves to be in the Hall of Not Getting Injured Fame but not Cooperstown. He's never been dominant, has never been a legitimate MVP candidate, has never put fear into opposing pitchers, played in the roids era, took roids (now we know for sure), played in the small ballpark era, etc. In my opinion, being in the hall of fame should be determined by how dominant you were in your era. Palmeiro has never been dominant. These "automatic induction numbers" should be thrown out as having 3,000 hits and 500 homers in the 90s/00s are not even comparable to those same stats in the 50s/60s. I'm sick of players getting in because they kept playing well past their prime (Eddie Murray) while other players who retired earlier don't get in (Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Dale Murphy) because they don't have those benchmark numbers.
[Edited on 8-1-2005 by FiveToolPlayer]
August 01, 2005 at 05:42PM View BBCode
Let's hope this sets of a string of high profile players getting caught and being exposed.Palmeiro didn't deserve to get in anyway. He deserves to be in the Hall of Not Getting Injured Fame but not Cooperstown. He's never been dominant, has never been a legitimate MVP candidate, has never put fear into opposing pitchers, played in the roids era, took roids (now we know for sure), played in the small ballpark era, etc. In my opinion, being in the hall of fame should be determined by how dominant you were in your era. Palmeiro has never been dominant. These "automatic induction numbers" should be thrown out as having 3,000 hits and 500 homers in the 90s/00s are not even comparable to those same stats in the 50s/60s. I'm sick of players getting in because they kept playing well past their prime (Eddie Murray) while other players who retired earlier don't get in (Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Dale Murphy) because they don't have those benchmark numbers.
[Edited on 8-1-2005 by FiveToolPlayer]
Casper
I'm sure there will be plenty of people who will say we should give him the benefit, maybe he really didn't realize he took what he took. Maybe it was just his first time, just like it was the first time Sammy used a corked bat. Does anyone remember the first 3-4 seasons Palmeiro played, before he joined Texas and Canseco? I thought he and Mark Grace were very similar players. Palmeiro never hit for power but was a good hitter. Then he joins Texas, meets Jose, and blows up like that dude from Fantastic 4. Sorry, no benefit of the doubt given here.
August 01, 2005 at 05:43PM View BBCode
I am seriously old school, so I will admit to being a little biased but I have to say there is no way I would vote him in. I just listened to his testimony in front of the congressional hearing and he strongly denied using, or ever having used steriods. Not only that but he seriously bashed Canseco (not that I'm a Canseco fan) and his book of lies. At the very least he is guilty of being hypocrital, committing perjury at the hearing, and damaging his reputation/chance for election to the HOF. Ryno was just talking yesterday about integrity and respect for the game. I don't think today's players are listening. Of course, I think a lot of fans are apathetic to it as well, which burns me up too. But that's just me.I'm sure there will be plenty of people who will say we should give him the benefit, maybe he really didn't realize he took what he took. Maybe it was just his first time, just like it was the first time Sammy used a corked bat. Does anyone remember the first 3-4 seasons Palmeiro played, before he joined Texas and Canseco? I thought he and Mark Grace were very similar players. Palmeiro never hit for power but was a good hitter. Then he joins Texas, meets Jose, and blows up like that dude from Fantastic 4. Sorry, no benefit of the doubt given here.
whiskybear
Uhh, wrong usage of the term "mythical" there, unless you're referring to the number of Titans trapped under Mt. Olympus or some other such nonsense.
And his numbers clearly warrant Hall of Fame induction. Between 1995 and 2003 he hit 38 home runs or more with solid OBP and SLG numbers. The counting stats just make him a lock, esp. when guys like Tony Perez are in the Hall of Fame.
August 01, 2005 at 05:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FiveToolPlayer
Let's hope this sets of a string of high profile players getting caught and being exposed.
Palmeiro didn't deserve to get in anyway. He deserves to be in the Hall of Not Getting Injured Fame but not Cooperstown. He's never been dominant, has never been a legitimate MVP candidate, has never put fear into opposing pitchers, played in the roids era, took roids (now we know for sure), played in the small ballpark era, etc. In my opinion, being in the hall of fame should be determined by how dominant you were in your era. Palmeiro has never been dominant. These "automatic induction numbers" should be thrown out as having 3,000 hits and 500 homers in the 90s/00s are not even comparable to those same stats in the 50s/60s. I'm sick of players getting in because they kept playing well past their prime (Eddie Murray) while other players who retired earlier don't get in (Andre Dawson, Jim Rice, Dale Murphy) because they don't have those mythical numbers.
Uhh, wrong usage of the term "mythical" there, unless you're referring to the number of Titans trapped under Mt. Olympus or some other such nonsense.
And his numbers clearly warrant Hall of Fame induction. Between 1995 and 2003 he hit 38 home runs or more with solid OBP and SLG numbers. The counting stats just make him a lock, esp. when guys like Tony Perez are in the Hall of Fame.
FiveToolPlayer
August 01, 2005 at 06:17PM View BBCode
There ya go, I fixed "mythical" even though it doesn't effect my point of Palmeiro being good and healthy but not even close to dominant.
Unclescam777
Anybody caught using steroids doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, period. In fact, if it were up to me he'd be banned from baseball for corrupting the game along with any other juicer. How do so many players "unintentionally" take steroids? The word bullshit comes to mind. Why is it that every other human in this world knows what he/she is putting into their body except for athletes? Come on now, I thought you guys were smarter than that. No roid user should be defended based on ignorance. As judges have pointed out many times in court ignorance is not a viable defense for breaking the law.
But I have to wonder, does Palmeiro have asthma? Many medications for that condition contain steroids. What about Viagra? Is sildenafil citrate (the chemical that viagra is) a type of steroid? We know he takes that. I'll be the first to understand if he somehow failed his test due to a medication he is taking. But I refuse to accept ignorance as his defense. It's bullshit and you all know it.
August 01, 2005 at 06:19PM View BBCode
I'd have to say I agree with FiveToolPlayer here. Numbers can be very deceiving, and players like Palmeiro are proof of that. He's a solid player but his numbers make him out to be a great player simply because he played for a long time. Then again the same could be said of Hank Aaron...Anybody caught using steroids doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, period. In fact, if it were up to me he'd be banned from baseball for corrupting the game along with any other juicer. How do so many players "unintentionally" take steroids? The word bullshit comes to mind. Why is it that every other human in this world knows what he/she is putting into their body except for athletes? Come on now, I thought you guys were smarter than that. No roid user should be defended based on ignorance. As judges have pointed out many times in court ignorance is not a viable defense for breaking the law.
But I have to wonder, does Palmeiro have asthma? Many medications for that condition contain steroids. What about Viagra? Is sildenafil citrate (the chemical that viagra is) a type of steroid? We know he takes that. I'll be the first to understand if he somehow failed his test due to a medication he is taking. But I refuse to accept ignorance as his defense. It's bullshit and you all know it.
Duff77
A suspension has to be served regardless, and 10 games is an insulting slap on the wrist whether it was intentional or not. I won't dismiss the possiblity of this being accidental without further evidence, but either way, it is ultimately the responsibility of the player to know what goes into his body.
And just so the Oriole bird in my avatar doesn't trip anybody up, I'm not saying I believe him. I think the assumption in this and all similar cases has to be that it was intentional, because "I did it by accident" is just too damn easy. I've always liked Raffy, and I'd like to believe he's telling the truth, but he's guilty until proven innocent (or, better said, stupid--which is the most he can claim to be).
-----
My only comment on Raffy's HOF worthiness prior to this whole 'roids issue is as follows: Some people don't think longevity counts for anything. Some do. I'm among those who do. "Health" is a sought-after attribute in SimD, and in the real world as well. If staying healthy was as easy as people seem to think, there'd be 100 players with 500 home runs.
August 01, 2005 at 07:28PM View BBCode
People have been waiting to nail someone big to a fence post, and Palmerio being their first opportunity, there you go. I don't think we should be rash enough to dismiss the possiblity this was an accident out-of-hand. Questions worth asking are: Was he among the 5% that tested positive last year? What "supplements" was he actually taking, what was in them, and if something bad was in them, why the hell was he taking something he didn't know the contents of?A suspension has to be served regardless, and 10 games is an insulting slap on the wrist whether it was intentional or not. I won't dismiss the possiblity of this being accidental without further evidence, but either way, it is ultimately the responsibility of the player to know what goes into his body.
And just so the Oriole bird in my avatar doesn't trip anybody up, I'm not saying I believe him. I think the assumption in this and all similar cases has to be that it was intentional, because "I did it by accident" is just too damn easy. I've always liked Raffy, and I'd like to believe he's telling the truth, but he's guilty until proven innocent (or, better said, stupid--which is the most he can claim to be).
-----
My only comment on Raffy's HOF worthiness prior to this whole 'roids issue is as follows: Some people don't think longevity counts for anything. Some do. I'm among those who do. "Health" is a sought-after attribute in SimD, and in the real world as well. If staying healthy was as easy as people seem to think, there'd be 100 players with 500 home runs.
barterer2002
I suppose that depends upon your defination of dominant. You seem to indicate that you have to be an MVP canidate to be dominant however I don't think so. For instance, neither Wade Boggs nor Tony Gwynn was ever really a solid MVP canidate yet both were dominant in a certain portion of the game winning batting title after batting title. Should they not be Hall of Famers simply because they weren't MVP canidates.
It seems to me that there are, and should be, spots in the Hall of Fame for players who dominated for a short time (Koufax, Kiner, Joss) and those who held a standard of excellance over lengthy careers (Clemente, Yastrzemski, Murray).
One of the key things to remember is that Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Willie Mays are not the standard for the Hall of Fame. They never were. They can't be. There is a place in Cooperstown for Palmeiro for what he did in the short term as well as what he did over his entire career. His steroid use may hold him back a little but he will eventually be elected.
August 01, 2005 at 08:01PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FiveToolPlayer
He's never been dominant, has never been a legitimate MVP candidate, has never put fear into opposing pitchers . . . In my opinion, being in the hall of fame should be determined by how dominant you were in your era. Palmeiro has never been dominant.
I suppose that depends upon your defination of dominant. You seem to indicate that you have to be an MVP canidate to be dominant however I don't think so. For instance, neither Wade Boggs nor Tony Gwynn was ever really a solid MVP canidate yet both were dominant in a certain portion of the game winning batting title after batting title. Should they not be Hall of Famers simply because they weren't MVP canidates.
It seems to me that there are, and should be, spots in the Hall of Fame for players who dominated for a short time (Koufax, Kiner, Joss) and those who held a standard of excellance over lengthy careers (Clemente, Yastrzemski, Murray).
One of the key things to remember is that Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Willie Mays are not the standard for the Hall of Fame. They never were. They can't be. There is a place in Cooperstown for Palmeiro for what he did in the short term as well as what he did over his entire career. His steroid use may hold him back a little but he will eventually be elected.
ME
Palmeiro before this was a first-ballot hall of famer. Longevity matters, and Palmeiro was a very good player for a long time. Unlike in simdynasty, it's hard to stay healthy and produce for a dozen+ years. There are many crappier players in the hall of fame, the main arguments against him are the same that say only the all-time elite players should be in the hall of fame, not the very good ones. By that logic, a lot of players would have to be kicked out.
August 01, 2005 at 10:57PM View BBCode
Wade Boggs was robbed of several MVPs, he posted amazing OBPs in an era of weak offenses.Palmeiro before this was a first-ballot hall of famer. Longevity matters, and Palmeiro was a very good player for a long time. Unlike in simdynasty, it's hard to stay healthy and produce for a dozen+ years. There are many crappier players in the hall of fame, the main arguments against him are the same that say only the all-time elite players should be in the hall of fame, not the very good ones. By that logic, a lot of players would have to be kicked out.
FiveToolPlayer
August 01, 2005 at 11:05PM View BBCode
I feel that longevity is valued WAY too highly. That's how you get players like Palmeiro and even Eddie Murray (much better than Palmeiro, plus he played in a different era) in the hall and not players like the few I mentioned above. For example, Frank Thomas might not get in even though he's a two time MVP, has won a batting title, led the league in tons of categories, has one of the highest all time OBPs, etc. He might not get in because he'll come up short of 3,000 hits and probably 500 home runs. Who was a better player, Frank Thomas or Rafael Palmeiro? Palmeiro was a better fielder but I'll take Frank Thomas's scary good bat any day.
FuriousGiorge
August 01, 2005 at 11:23PM View BBCode
I'd take Palmeiro (ignoring the steroid issue) over the three you mentioned (Dawson, Rice and Dale Murphy) any day. Add Don Mattingly and Jack Morris to those three and you've got the set of the most overblown Hall of Fame cases of the last decade.
Duff77
"There's no way he couldn't have known he took a steroid."
Let's examine that, shall we? Baseball players aren't any smarter than the rest of us--and a lot of us are pretty stupid. All this takes is some "friend" saying, "Hey, try this supplement of mine--it really works" having no idea it's a steroid. Even in that instance, Palmerio is completely responsible for being aware of what goes into his body--but the statement "there's no way he couldn't have known" is just utter BS when we don't have any idea what all the facts are. But never mind that--the sportswriters smell blood in the water. Retire, Raffy--please.
August 01, 2005 at 11:59PM View BBCode
Ew... Man, listening to various commentators, there's no question they want to hang Palmerio. You know, his best move is to retire. He's got 3000 hits and 500 HRs... The Orioles are going nowhere... He should just step aside and hope this thing dies out as quickly as possible. He's probably lost his HOF spot anyway... If he sticks around, he's just going to give the reporters something to talk about. These guys are foaming at the mouth to make their mint slapping Raffy around."There's no way he couldn't have known he took a steroid."
Let's examine that, shall we? Baseball players aren't any smarter than the rest of us--and a lot of us are pretty stupid. All this takes is some "friend" saying, "Hey, try this supplement of mine--it really works" having no idea it's a steroid. Even in that instance, Palmerio is completely responsible for being aware of what goes into his body--but the statement "there's no way he couldn't have known" is just utter BS when we don't have any idea what all the facts are. But never mind that--the sportswriters smell blood in the water. Retire, Raffy--please.
FiveToolPlayer
Compare Palmeiro to Rice:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riceji01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/palmera01.shtml
They have pretty similar stats with the exception that Rice played in 4 less full seasons so he has less hits and homers. Combine that with Rice winning an MVP, being one of the best hitters in the league, he didn't get to face the watered down pitching, and most importantly he played in the 70s and 80s and not in the steroid/small park era, and you could easily argue that Rice is a better player.
Again, my point is that longevity is over-valued and voters are hypnotized by the benchmark numbers (3,000 hits, 500 homers).
August 01, 2005 at 11:59PM View BBCode
I disagree, I'd take Rice and Dawson (I never liked Murphy so much). They used to strike fear into opponents and I watched a lot of Cubs and Sox games in the mid to late 80s so I remember their impact, I'm not just basing this on what I've read or heard.Compare Palmeiro to Rice:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riceji01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/palmera01.shtml
They have pretty similar stats with the exception that Rice played in 4 less full seasons so he has less hits and homers. Combine that with Rice winning an MVP, being one of the best hitters in the league, he didn't get to face the watered down pitching, and most importantly he played in the 70s and 80s and not in the steroid/small park era, and you could easily argue that Rice is a better player.
Again, my point is that longevity is over-valued and voters are hypnotized by the benchmark numbers (3,000 hits, 500 homers).
FuriousGiorge
August 02, 2005 at 12:14AM View BBCode
Palmeiro has a career OPS+ of 132. Rice has a career OPS+ of 128 in a shorter career. They both won two silver slugger awards. Palmeiro also won 3 Gold Gloves (and yes, I know at least one of those was undeserved). Palmeiro was a better hitter and better fielder in a longer career.
FiveToolPlayer
August 02, 2005 at 12:27AM View BBCode
Palmeiro used steroids. His stats are inflated.
whiskybear
Hollywood gunslinger street-tough personas may make for better theatre, but consistency matters for a lot more. Steroids or no, Rafael Palmeiro has been a much more consistent and better player.
[Edited on 8-2-2005 by whiskybear]
August 02, 2005 at 12:30AM View BBCode
What exactly was it about Rice that struck fear in the hearts of his opponents? The .352 career on-base percentage? The anomolous power seasons (39, 46, and 39 from '77 to '79 and 39 more in '83, better than 40 percent of his career total in four seasons)? Harsh language? Rice had about 5 or 6 seasons where he was truly a force to be reckoned with on the diamond, and even then he had his shortcomings (most glaringly, he rarely walked as a power hitter, and had an OBP over .370 five times in his career; Jack Clark has a career OBP 27 points higher as a contemporary of Rice's).Hollywood gunslinger street-tough personas may make for better theatre, but consistency matters for a lot more. Steroids or no, Rafael Palmeiro has been a much more consistent and better player.
[Edited on 8-2-2005 by whiskybear]
swerve
Orlando Cepeda (911) *
Andres Galarraga (893)
Ellis Burks (882)
Duke Snider (880) *
Joe Carter (864)
Dave Parker (856)
Billy Williams (854) *
Gary Sheffield (849)
Willie Stargell (843) *
Chili Davis (837
Vs. Raffy
Frank Robinson (880) *
Eddie Murray (876) *
Reggie Jackson (842) *
Mel Ott (828) *
Dave Winfield (820) *
Fred McGriff (817)
Al Kaline (805) *
Harold Baines (792)
Willie McCovey (768) *
Billy Williams (756) *
August 02, 2005 at 12:53AM View BBCode
Yeah, similar to RiceOrlando Cepeda (911) *
Andres Galarraga (893)
Ellis Burks (882)
Duke Snider (880) *
Joe Carter (864)
Dave Parker (856)
Billy Williams (854) *
Gary Sheffield (849)
Willie Stargell (843) *
Chili Davis (837
Vs. Raffy
Frank Robinson (880) *
Eddie Murray (876) *
Reggie Jackson (842) *
Mel Ott (828) *
Dave Winfield (820) *
Fred McGriff (817)
Al Kaline (805) *
Harold Baines (792)
Willie McCovey (768) *
Billy Williams (756) *
swerve
[Edited on 8-2-2005 by swerve]
August 02, 2005 at 01:01AM View BBCode
Since longevity is overvalued does that mean that guys like Aaron, Brett, Henderson and Ripken are overrated?[Edited on 8-2-2005 by swerve]
barterer2002
You have GOT to be kidding me. What's next Dwight Evans in 1984, Dave Kingman in 1979 or Hal McRae in 1976 after all each of them led the leage in OPS in the given season.
Additionally to say that Boggs' OPS numbers were amazing is a little disingenious. He led the league twice, 1987 and 1988. In 88 he edged out Canseco (who went 40/40 that year) by .006 points in OPS. Hardly a reason to give Boggs the MVP over Canseco that year. In 87 his 1.049 OPS was certainly good. It was the highest mark in the AL between Brett in 1980 and Olerud in 1993 and beat second place Paul Molitor by .05 points, however to say that Boggs was the MVP in 1987 when the Red Sox went from the verge of the World Championship in '86 to a fifth place finish in 1987 shows that Boggs wasn't that valuable, they could probably have finished fifth without him just as easily.
Finally, keep in mind that Boston hitters dominate this category simply by virtue of the park they play in. Since Fenway opened in 1912, a Red Sox has led the league in OPS 27 times, only the Yankees are close to that figure with 24, thanks in large part to the eleven won by Ruth. It is true that players like Williams, Ramirez and Yastrzemski have led the league for the Red Sox but so have Dwight Evans and Bob Johnson.
August 02, 2005 at 01:06AM View BBCode
Originally posted by ME
Wade Boggs was robbed of several MVPs,
You have GOT to be kidding me. What's next Dwight Evans in 1984, Dave Kingman in 1979 or Hal McRae in 1976 after all each of them led the leage in OPS in the given season.
Additionally to say that Boggs' OPS numbers were amazing is a little disingenious. He led the league twice, 1987 and 1988. In 88 he edged out Canseco (who went 40/40 that year) by .006 points in OPS. Hardly a reason to give Boggs the MVP over Canseco that year. In 87 his 1.049 OPS was certainly good. It was the highest mark in the AL between Brett in 1980 and Olerud in 1993 and beat second place Paul Molitor by .05 points, however to say that Boggs was the MVP in 1987 when the Red Sox went from the verge of the World Championship in '86 to a fifth place finish in 1987 shows that Boggs wasn't that valuable, they could probably have finished fifth without him just as easily.
Finally, keep in mind that Boston hitters dominate this category simply by virtue of the park they play in. Since Fenway opened in 1912, a Red Sox has led the league in OPS 27 times, only the Yankees are close to that figure with 24, thanks in large part to the eleven won by Ruth. It is true that players like Williams, Ramirez and Yastrzemski have led the league for the Red Sox but so have Dwight Evans and Bob Johnson.
ME
[url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/riceji01.shtml]Jim Rice[/url]
Career Wins Above Replacement: 82.6
Career EQA: .295
His peak isn't that impressive, in 1978 he was posted a 10 WARP, along with 7.0 in 1977 and 7.9 in 1979.
[url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/palmera01.shtml]Rafael Palmeiro[/url]
Career Wins Above Replacement: 119.1
Career EQA: .305
His best year (1993 with 10.3 WARP) is better than Rice's, and while his best seasons aren't all clumped together, he was at or over 7 WARP seven times as compared to Rice's 5.
None of this factors in defense, where Palmeiro was better, although it's hard to be sure by how much.
August 02, 2005 at 01:06AM View BBCode
With BP allowing everyone to see the premium stuff this week, it makes this a lot easier.[url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/riceji01.shtml]Jim Rice[/url]
Career Wins Above Replacement: 82.6
Career EQA: .295
His peak isn't that impressive, in 1978 he was posted a 10 WARP, along with 7.0 in 1977 and 7.9 in 1979.
[url=http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/palmera01.shtml]Rafael Palmeiro[/url]
Career Wins Above Replacement: 119.1
Career EQA: .305
His best year (1993 with 10.3 WARP) is better than Rice's, and while his best seasons aren't all clumped together, he was at or over 7 WARP seven times as compared to Rice's 5.
None of this factors in defense, where Palmeiro was better, although it's hard to be sure by how much.
whiskybear
"Does anyone want to switch seats?"
August 02, 2005 at 01:11AM View BBCode
"WARP...the cosmic ballet goes on.""Does anyone want to switch seats?"
ME
1987 he clearly deserved it, he provided the most value to his team regardless of how good the other players around him were.
1988:
Boggs: 3B, .366-.476-.490, 11.2 WARP
Canseco: OF, .307-.391-.569, 11.0 WARP
Boggs gets the WARP edge (which adjusts for park). His raw numbers were much better considering OBP is a bit more important than SLG and he was a third baseman rather than an OF. A 40-40 season is a unique accomplishment, but unique accomplishments don't win games.
He was the best player in the AL both these years but didn't win the MVP because he didn't put up the kind of year that impresses the voters. A case can be made for Canseco in '88, but Boggs is a little better. Over his career his awesome OBP got too little credit for what it actually was worth and his low HR totals hurt him more than they should have.
From '83 to '89, he was the most productive hitter in the AL.
[Edited on 8-2-2005 by ME]
August 02, 2005 at 01:17AM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Originally posted by ME
Wade Boggs was robbed of several MVPs,
You have GOT to be kidding me. What's next Dwight Evans in 1984, Dave Kingman in 1979 or Hal McRae in 1976 after all each of them led the leage in OPS in the given season.
Additionally to say that Boggs' OPS numbers were amazing is a little disingenious. He led the league twice, 1987 and 1988. In 88 he edged out Canseco (who went 40/40 that year) by .006 points in OPS. Hardly a reason to give Boggs the MVP over Canseco that year. In 87 his 1.049 OPS was certainly good. It was the highest mark in the AL between Brett in 1980 and Olerud in 1993 and beat second place Paul Molitor by .05 points, however to say that Boggs was the MVP in 1987 when the Red Sox went from the verge of the World Championship in '86 to a fifth place finish in 1987 shows that Boggs wasn't that valuable, they could probably have finished fifth without him just as easily.
Finally, keep in mind that Boston hitters dominate this category simply by virtue of the park they play in. Since Fenway opened in 1912, a Red Sox has led the league in OPS 27 times, only the Yankees are close to that figure with 24, thanks in large part to the eleven won by Ruth. It is true that players like Williams, Ramirez and Yastrzemski have led the league for the Red Sox but so have Dwight Evans and Bob Johnson.
1987 he clearly deserved it, he provided the most value to his team regardless of how good the other players around him were.
1988:
Boggs: 3B, .366-.476-.490, 11.2 WARP
Canseco: OF, .307-.391-.569, 11.0 WARP
Boggs gets the WARP edge (which adjusts for park). His raw numbers were much better considering OBP is a bit more important than SLG and he was a third baseman rather than an OF. A 40-40 season is a unique accomplishment, but unique accomplishments don't win games.
He was the best player in the AL both these years but didn't win the MVP because he didn't put up the kind of year that impresses the voters. A case can be made for Canseco in '88, but Boggs is a little better. Over his career his awesome OBP got too little credit for what it actually was worth and his low HR totals hurt him more than they should have.
From '83 to '89, he was the most productive hitter in the AL.
[Edited on 8-2-2005 by ME]