Who should be the MVP?

[Goober]

Player A: .372/.463/.698 .476 wOBA, 162 wRC+, 42 HRs, 147 RBIs, 138 R, 5 SB

Player B: .303/.366/.541 .387 wOBA, 127 wRC+, 36 HRs, 104 RBIs, 122 R, 21 SB

Player C: .306/.440/.688 .456 wOBA, 174 wRC+, 49 HRs, 106 RBIs, 129 R, 11 SB

Player D: .334/.424/.596 .431 wOBA, 158 wRC+, 33 HRs, 125 RBIs, 114 R, 12 SB

Player E: .314/.391/.636 .428 wOBA, 149 wRC+, 44 HRs, 122 RBIs, 118 R, 13 SB

Vote in poll. I will post year, player names, actual voting results latter.

 

[Villain]

A.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Thats some year.

Please remove wRC+, nobody cares.

'A' clearly should have won, but obviously didnt or this thread wouldnt exist. Maybe his team was terrible.

 

[Primetime]

Thats some year.

Please remove wRC+, nobody cares.

'A' clearly should have won, but obviously didnt or this thread wouldnt exist. Maybe his team was terrible.

It's the year Helton finished 5th in voting :tiptoe:

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

ahhh, the old Coors bias

 

[Goober]

ahhh, the old Coors bias

Hence the inclusion of wRC+...

 

[Villain]

Reezultsz.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_2000.shtml#NLmvp

Jeff Kent, D, won.

 

[FedEx227]

He was one of the worst votes IIRC. I haven't looked at the voting structure yet but it's unbelievable that he won despite the presence ON HIS OWN TEAM of Barry Bonds. Kent wasn't even that good of a defender.

 

[EmpireWF]

It's the year Helton finished 5th in voting :tiptoe:

On a .500 team.

 

[NAHSTE]

Holy shit at this being a sixth place finish ...

.345/.410/.664, 44 HR, .439 wOBA, 160 wRC+

mg2:

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

steroids have no effect on the game though, right Calcaterra?

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Holy shit at this being a sixth place finish ...

.345/.410/.664, 44 HR, .439 wOBA, 160 wRC+

mg2:

Sosa hit 50 HR's and finished 9th.

Look at Richard Hidalgo's numbers. He finshed 20th!

 

[Goober]

This finished 17th:
19-7, 2.64 ERA, 248.2 IP, 347 Ks, 77 BBs.

3 other pitchers finished higher. Makes Verlander winning the MVP in 2011 laughable (not that it wasn't already).

 

[NAHSTE]

LOL at Ellis Burks OPSing 1.000.

What a goofy era.

 

[FedEx227]

steroids have no effect on the game though, right Calcaterra?

Here's the thing NAHSTE and I are talking about in the chat box now.

Steroids may have played a part but that whole era has a weird feeling to it that wasn't STRICTLY steroids. Smaller ballparks, expansion destroying pitching and very obviously juiced balls.

I'm not going to take the "steroid have zero effect" stance, but these way more to these weird ass numbers. I mean are we led to believe everyone used steroids from 1998-2002 then suddenly stopped using or used different stuff? Something else was at work to make these numbers as irrational and insane. Numbers were still large in the 90s and late 00s, but this 1999-2001 period was insanity.

 

[Villain]

Makes Verlander winning the MVP in 2011 laughable (not that it wasn't already).

Who should've won?

 

[Goober]

Who should've won?

I lean towards Bautista, but would have been fine with either him or Ellsbury.

 

[EmpireWF]

Who should've won?

Ellsbury or Cabrera (tho Verlander in play hurt him).

 

[Villain]

I lean towards Bautista, but would have been fine with either him or Ellsbury.

Ellsbury or Cabrera (tho Verlander in play hurt him).

So there are 3 options, meaning that there really wasn't a clear one as far as position players go.

That's why Verlander won.

 

[EmpireWF]

I'm not going to take the "steroid have zero effect" stance, but these way more to these weird ass numbers. I mean are we led to believe everyone used steroids from 1998-2002 then suddenly stopped using or used different stuff? Something else was at work to make these numbers as irrational and insane. Numbers were still large in the 90s and late 00s, but this 1999-2001 period was insanity.

# of 40 HR guys since '90

90 - 2 (1 50)
91 - 2
92 - 2
93 - 5
94 - 2
95 - 4 (1 50)
96 - 17 (2 50)
97 - 12 (2 50)
98 - 13 (2 50, 1 60, 1 70)
99 - 13 (2 60)
00 - 16 (1 50)
01 - 12 (2 50, 1 60, 1 70)
02 - 8 (2 50)
03 - 10
04 - 9
05 - 9 (1 50)
06 - 11 (2 50)
07 - 5 (2 50)
08 - 2
09 - 5
10 - 2 (1 50)
11 - 2
12 - 6

Good thing this isn't cyclical. :shifty: