I'm sure you don't even realize what sabremetric stats are, because they haven't been discussed in this thread, and the two statistics you named are not at all sabremetric. It is funny how stats like HR, R, ERA, OBP, etc. are regarded as "irrelevant". The first guideline listed in the official criteria is "Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense." That would be those "BS" stats like BA, 2B, 3B, HR, R, OBP, SLG, SB, etc.
I did renege on my original stance that those stats were irrelevant. I admitted that I was too quick to say it, and that it was wrong of me to say. However, I still hold that Jeter's stats are good enough, and combined with the other criteria he is far and away the MVP of the AL. Is that homerism? Maybe. I don't see Dye every day. I am convinced Ortiz does not make the cut. I've already explained why. Frank Thomas doesn't even deserve consideration IMO, based solely on the total criteria. Pitchers have a tough case. If nothing else, the guideline of games played kills them. All I'm looking for is someone's explanation of why Jeter doesn't deserve the award, based solely on the criteria established over 80 years ago. So far, I have yet to see any argument to refute him, based on the official guidelines.
I think the problem with the "criteria" for the award is you're treating each category like it should be equivalent when it clearly isn't. Obviously if a position player only plays 100 games you're going to have a tough time making a case for them as MVP. When you're talking about 142 vs 138 this wouldn't come into play. The "actual value of a player to his team" is the #1 consideration. I don't see how this can be argued. The rest of the criteria are sort of "tiebreakers" in the case of multiple deserving players. In other words, Jeter doesn't deserve the MVP because he's always smiling. Sorry.
See? Again you are doing it. You scream and yell whenever someone picks out something you write, and twists it. This is a clearcut example of Champing. Congrats. And no. The first criteria is NOT the most important piece. They were discussing it ESPN during the Yankee game last night. ALL of the criteria must be weighed when making a vote. Just because you don't agree with what a MVP should be doesn't change the fact that over 80 years ago criteria was established for the award, and not once has ANY of it been changed. I don't think this argument is even worth having. You obviously have your opinions, based solely on your stats-based view of the sport in general, and you aren't going to change.
How am I twisting what you write? I interpreted your last post as saying that all of the critera should be weighed more or less equally when voting for the MVP. You seem to be confirming that assumption with this post. Is this what you think? If the first criteria is not the most important then which is? Past voting indicates that most voters don't follow the "official" critera(as you interpret it) so it's not just me disagreeing with it, it's the people that actually matter doing so. If character, loyalty etc was so important to the voting how did a scumbag and a lousy teammate like Bonds win the award 4 years in a row? I'm really just trying to understand how you can post something like "Jeter has played 142 games and Ortiz 138" and think it has any impact on MVP voting. We're obviously not going to agree on Jeter but you've posted some pretty off the wall arguments lately on why he should win.
I don't see my arguments as off the wall. I hear you on your points, and sure, they make sense. The stats should be weighed a bit heavier than the other pieces. I agree that Bonds should never have been voted MVP. (Was it really 4 times? How freaking bad is the NL that Bonds was MVP 4 straight times? That's ridiculous.) Number of games is criteria to base the award voting on. That was my point. I wasn't trying to say that "Hey, Jeter played in a whole 4 more games, so that makes him MVP." That would be a stupid argument. All I meant is that it is another piece of the criteria that he has over Ortiz and Dye. I'm pointing out why Jeter is the MVP in the total picture. If you try to disect my argument into individual points, then there is no way you could ever see my POV. Jeter far excels Ortiz and Dye in the intangibles department in the MVP guidelines. I don't see how that can even be argued. Ortiz is a poor sportsman, whether people want to accept that or not. Staring at a ball every time you hit it hard is ridiculous, and to me looks more foolish than defensive ends who get a sack on the third string QB with 1:32 left on the clock, down by 18, and then do a stupid dance. Last night, Ortiz struck out because he was so busy pissing and moaning about the strike calls on him that he forgot to pay attention to actually hitting the ball. (Granted, his complaints were valid, but every Little Leaguer is taught to STFU and deal with the calls.) You don't see Jeter arguing balls and strikes. If he doesn't agree with the call, he raises his eyebrows, and gets ready for the next pitch. So IMO, Jeter has all of the guidelines after the first all locked up. As for the first guideline, he has the clear advantage in the defense department. If you argue for Ortiz that he should not be subjected to prejudice because he is a DH, then the opposite would have to be true as well. Jeter should not be knocked down a notch, simply because he doesn't hit home runs. Both of them were at the top of their games offensively this year. Just because they are different types of hitters doesn't make one more important than the other. But then Jeter gets the obvious boost of his glove. He also gets the lead in the intangible categories, for reasons I have already pointed out.
He's actually won it 7 times but the last 4 were in a row and a product of his steroid fueled insanity and the cowardice of NL pitchers. His numbers were so much better then anyone else's though there was really no way to give the award to anyone else. I'll admit the example is a little unfair given the historically great nature of Bonds' seasons. What I really took issue with initially was you claiming that these criteria ended the debate, when from my point of view they are open to interpretation. As for the bolded part I think this is what is at the crux of our disagreement. I believe that HR hitters are more important then singles hitters, for the simple reason of more total bases = more gooder. I mean, the league leaders in average this year are hitting around .340, it's going to be a tough sell for me that the guy hitting .340 without much power is a better hitter then someone hitting .310 with a .430ish OBP and 45 hrs.
Seven times? That's disgusting. I have to admit, this was probably in the time post-strike that I refused to watch baseball, so I wasn't aware. How could that be justified though? Surely, even with the numbers he put up, there had to be other players in the league who were qualified? Okay as far as my criteria being the end-all of the argument, I admit I did sort of present it that way. I should have been more clear. You know me, I always manage say what I meant 8 posts later. (I Champ myself!) Yeah, I get where we disagree. Let me disclaim my next statements as not trying to offend, so please don't take them that way. I think of myself as more of an old school baseball fan, whereas I see you as a new school fan. I still look at baseball as what it was pre-strike. Things like a game where more than 5 total runs is crazy, base hits and walks are more important than the long ball, sacrifice plays are just as critical as a timely hit. Whereas, you would rather have Ryan Howard come up in the ninth down two with no one on than Jeter. I would run a sacrifice to move over guys on first and second with less than 2 outs down one, whereas I think you would rather take your chances with a long shot, maybe getting a double or HR. I don't think either way is wrong. We just differ in our approach to the methods of victory. It's actually sort of funny. You're a Mets fan, and I am a Yankee fan, and I have more of a traditional NL tinge toward my feelings, and you have a traditional AL tinge. As far as the argument goes, I hear your point. You feel there is more value to an Ortiz. Which if he at least played the field at an average level, even first base, I would agree with you. However, he is not only a DH, but is downright scary when he plays first. As for the award, I give it to Jeter for being the total package, rather than just a good bat. (And from the guidelines, that is how it should be.) (I just can't believe Bonds won it that many times. That disturbs me beyond words.)
His numbers were really out of this world. His OBP was .500+ all 4 years and it was .609 in 04. He slugged .799+ 3 of the years and .749 the other year. 2003 was his "worst" year in this stretch and the 2nd best hitter in the league(Pujols) was still nearly .200 points behind in OPS. And the Giants won 100 games that year and the Cards didn't make the playoffs. I think that's fairly accurate, but even back in the "old school" you had a guy like Earl Weaver pioneering the strategy that is just starting to gain "mainstream" acceptance today. If I had been growing up in his heyday I think it would've been pretty difficult not to be an Orioles fan. This is pretty much the greatest quote ever uttered by a manager:
OPS was invented (I believe) by John Thorn and Pete Palmer, and if they didn't invent it they were certainly the first to popularize it in their book "The Hidden Game of Baseball" (which is a great book by the way.) Thorn and Palmer are the two most famous Sabermatricians in the world after Bill James, so yes I would argue that OPS is a SABR stat. In fact, I'd love to hear your arguement on why it's not.
OPS is the most useful stat by far to determine the importance of a slugger by far, but is difficult to compare a leadoff hitter to a clean up hitter. And for the people saying that Jeter is untouchable as the AL MVP, you are seriously mistaken. It is a very tight race between Santana, Dye, et al and to say that Jeter is the clear-cut favorite is very byast. We all know how leadoff hitters struggle to win the MVP award, if they didn't Reyes would be the NL MVP for sure because no one sparks his team better by getting on. Yes I do believe that Derek Jeter deserves the MVP, but a very strong case for Santana and Dye can be made. By saying "It's not debatable" is basically admitting that you don't believe in Jeter enough to continue the argument. So either admit it, or suck it up like a man and keep going.
Well the numbers are good, but it's not like he was ever not a shithead, even pre-steroids. (Sadly I used to support his attitude, since I felt he was mistreated by the media, but these days, I find very little pity in my heart for him.) I guess he supports the argument against mine a lot. He has none of the intangibles, and only really the offense to show. (I haven't watched Bonds play the field much over the past decade, so I don't know if he is too hot with the glove.) I think we've finally found our middle ground. At least now we both understand where the other is coming from. We just see the game in different ways. Nothing at all wrong with that. I'm sure this will make future conversations easier to work with on both sides. (BTW: Jeter hit a 3-0 fastball out of the park a few minutes ago to put the Yankees up by 1 with a 2 run dinger. This was after ARod hit a 2 run homer to get them to 3-2. Just something interesting to say I think.) My opinion of the new era of baseball is that it grew out of the strike. That strike was extremely damaging to baseball. Fans who had loved the game for decades walked away from the game. Tagliabue got a lot of credit for making football so popular during his tenure, but when the strike in baseball happened, it made football significantly more popular. If I remember correctly, not long after the strike was when the soccer world cup was played in the States as well. This started getting people more into fast-moving games. I remember hockey and basketball becoming more popular in that timeframe as well. Baseball, when it returned was dismal. It was as though no one cared. I remember my father telling me he was disgusted that the World Series wasn't cancelled because of World War II, but money stopped the Fall Classic. The sport needed new life. That began the "juiced ball" era in earnest. (The juiced ball actually started a couple years before the strike, when baseball demanded that balls start being wound tighter.) As sad as it may be, I believe baseball at this point started getting guys to juice themselves. All of a sudden, guys who could hit the ball already were sending them into orbit. Big Mac, Bonds, Sosa. That's in combination with all of the expansion destroying the talent pool. The pitching depth on so many teams is flat out weak. If a few teams were contracted, and the better pitchers were the ones with the jobs, I think the scores would drop quickly. But this is all off-topic. I'm just trying to get my perspective out there for your reference.
I think you are misunderstanding what's going on here. No one is saying those other guys can't make an argument. (Well, I did say that Frank Thomas has no right to be mentioned.) Santana has a tough time because pitchers are losing out on the total games clause. Plus, they already have the Cy Young, that only they can win. The MVP is almost always for a position player. I think that makes sense personally. Dye has a strong argument. He has helped keep his team alive, so of course he warrants argument. However, again, if you consider him, as an outfielder, against Jeter as a shortstop, then you have to consider Jeter as a base hitter, against Ortiz as a power hitter. This year is honestly a tough race. The issue is that so many teams are in at least the wild card race very late in the year, in both leagues. In the AL, you have the ChiSox, Red Sox, Twins, Angels/A's. In the NL you have teams like St. Louis, Cinci, Philly. There are so many guys this year that have carried their teams. Fair arguments can be made for any one of them. It becomes very subjective. The reason I am so adamant for Jeter is because IMO, he is the only guy who fits all of the listed criteria as a total package. Sure, there is a bit of homerism mixed in, but I feel I have presented a pretty fair argument in his favor.
OPS was helped to become a mainstream statistic by sabermetricians because it was undervalued for years, but it's not a SABR stat at all, and it wasn't created by sabermatricians. It is a standard statistic, and it always has been. You can familiarize yourself with some SABR stats: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?context=2&category=true
You've gone from "not at all sabermetric" to admitting that sabermatricians are responsible for it's entry into the baseball lexicon. The fact is that OPS was not really used by anyone until "The Hidden Game of Baseball" came out and became popular, and because of them and other sabermatricians it turned into the most central statistic of measuring a hitter. So just to review: not used before sabermetrics, used widely after sabermetrics by sabermatricians. I suspect that if you had known that before hand you wouldn't have been making blanket statements and mocking me for equating OPS with SABR.
It's still not a sabermetric stat. It was not developed by sabermetricians. People who are considered sabermetricians helped to make it the main offensive statistic, but they didn't invent the statistic. I also didn't say they are responsible for it being mainstream. They helped, but it wasn't some foreign stat that was never used before them. Believe me, myself and many others knew all about OPS before Thorn and Palmer wrote about it. Just because sabermetricians used it as the #1 standard offensive statistic, and many people in the mainstream didn't, doesn't make it a SABR stat. It was always readily available. Peter Gammons was writing about OPS and WHIP (because if you're crazy enough to believe OPS is a SABR stat, I'm sure you think WHIP is a SABR stat, as well) all the time in the Boston Globe back in the 80's. Your statement that it wasn't really used by anyone before that book is very much incorrect. The difference is SABR types helped make it THE offensive statistic, before that it was more of a secondary statistic, but still used very much. So no, it's not at all a sabermetric statistic.
Hmm...I wonder why you didn't choose to include any of that information in your previous posts instead of just slapping insults and generalities at me? All we have here is a difference in interpretations.
