Another Tough MVP Vote Thread

[Afino]

Please keep in mind that these stats are over a 94-game season!

There's really only two candidates for my 1954 MVP.

1) 1B Ken "Horseface" Jensen - Chicago Blackhawks

- .358 AVG (1st in league by 24 points)
- .403 OBP (2nd)
- .696 SLG (1st)
- 1.099 OPS (1st)
- 24 HR (2nd)
- 57 RBI (9th)
- 50.2 VORP (1st)
- All this in only 72 games after missing 3-4 weeks with an injury
- Hit 15 of his 24 HR in the first 28 games of the season! Is the only player in league history to hit 4 HR in one game!
- Team finished 7th out of 10 teams (46-48), losing in the first round of the playoffs to...

2) 1B Arnold Simon - St. Louis Blues

- .329 AVG (4th)
- .387 OBP (4th)
- .595 SLG (2nd)
- .982 OPS (2nd)
- 28 HR (1st)
- 81 RBI (1st by 7 RBI, 14 over 3rd place)
- 45.0 VORP (2nd)
- 120 hits (2nd)
- 79 runs (1st, 2nd place had 68)
- Fairly consistent, had a monster 2nd month (.394, 10 HR), tailed off a bit towards end of season, and cost him Triple Crown.
- Team finished 2nd (57-37), defeating Jensen's Blackhawks in 5 games.


Who ya got? Is it Simon because his team did better?

Another solid point, no chance in hell does Chicago make the 8-team playoff field without Jensen. From 8/7 (the day he got hurt) to 9/1 (the day he returned), Chicago went 8-15, compared to 38-33 with him.

Simon had a solid supporting cast, including the league's best pitcher and a dynamic rookie leadoff hitter. St. Louis certainly makes the playoffs and ends in the top half of the league even without him.

[VARoadstter]

I go with Simon.

Yes, Jensen got hurt for a few weeks and it is worthy of mention. Even so, he doesn't gain "extra credit" for being injured. It would matter if they were a lot closer in all categories but there is a pretty significant difference in RBI. It's not a runaway contest but Simon's being there all season obviously helped his team to a better record. Even if he's just one piece of a really good team, he's got to be the best player on his team.

Injuries happen. It sucks when it's a guy you root for but in the end getting hurt doesn't help you or your team. It certainly isn't enough of an "excuse" to award him an MVP over a deserving opponent who had a monster year all season long.

[goldenglove_21]

Jensen gets my vote because his VORP and OPS are just that much better than Simon's.

[Oriole66]

If I'm looking at VORP or who is the better player to plug into a lineup or go after in free agency - I'll take Jensen.
But when it comes time to hand out the GLORY - I'll go with the guy who pushed across 81 runs and scored 79 in a winning season - while leading in HR's and posting a solid .329

Just my $.02 - But I'm old enough to remember when two cents could actually buy something, so consider the source.

[Left-handed Badger]

Simon.

[jasonn29tn14]

Jensen

[Jamee999]

Jensen, and it's not even close.

[TavesSoul]

As much as I think Jensen is the better player, and in my opinion what a true MVP should be (a player who without which the team wouldn't be as successful), by the modern day standards of who puts up the most of everything, you've gotta go with Simon. His RBI and Run numbers, added to his 28 homers make him he choice.

[Afino]

Yeah, I ended up taking Simon.


The reason I really did this was that Simon was on MY team, and I didn't want to feel like I was a homer by taking him, because it was an honestly close race.

[satchel]

Simon all the way.

I wish I knew why people worshipped OPS so much. To me, it means much less than RBI.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by satchel

Simon all the way.

I wish I knew why people worshipped OPS so much. To me, it means much less than RBI.

Not to mention Jensen had a torrid first 25 or so games, tailed off, got hurt, then had another big last two weeks.

Simon was solid all year and was the best hitter on the best hitting team.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Oriole66

If I'm looking at VORP or who is the better player to plug into a lineup or go after in free agency - I'll take Jensen.
But when it comes time to hand out the GLORY - I'll go with the guy who pushed across 81 runs and scored 79 in a winning season - while leading in HR's and posting a solid .329

Just my $.02 - But I'm old enough to remember when two cents could actually buy something, so consider the source.

That's the best argument I've ever read for basing one's vote for the MVP on HRs and RBIs. I'm pretty square in the other camp that the MVP should go to the best player period, but I wouldn't at all have a problem with separating the award into 2: one for the best player period and another for, like you put it, the one who garnered the most glory.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by kq76

That's the best argument I've ever read for basing one's vote for the MVP on HRs and RBIs. I'm pretty square in the other camp that the MVP should go to the best player period, but I wouldn't at all have a problem with separating the award into 2: one for the best player period and another for, like you put it, the one who garnered the most glory.

MVP = Most Valuable Player....

If a tree falls in the forest and no one can hear it, it don't make no noise....

[BMW]

Personally, I like the idea of awarding the biggest difference maker on a team that didn't coast into the playoffs. I have no problem with those who vote for with the concept of "batter of the year" though.

But I have a hard time reconciling that philosophy on a team that makes the playoffs at 46-48.

I'd vote for Simon, simply because if I were piloting a team that got into the playoffs with a below .500 record, I'd be making tee time reservations even before Game One.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Questdog

MVP = Most Valuable Player....

If a tree falls in the forest and no one can hear it, it don't make no noise....

IMO that's taking an awfully narrow definition of value. If a bad team has a great player he brings fans to the game, gives you a valuable bargaining chip in trade talks, etc. To me it's like saying person A has a 50 dollar bill, a couple 20s and 30 1s totalling 120 and person B only has a 100 dollar bill, but since person A has the most total money the 50 dollar bill must obviously be the most valuable bill of the bunch. Nonsense.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by BMW

Personally, I like the idea of awarding the biggest difference maker on a team that didn't coast into the playoffs. I have no problem with those who vote for with the concept of "batter of the year" though.

But I have a hard time reconciling that philosophy on a team that makes the playoffs at 46-48.

I'd vote for Simon, simply because if I were piloting a team that got into the playoffs with a below .500 record, I'd be making tee time reservations even before Game One.

Yeah...that's why I added how much Jensen actually meant to that offense.

And yeah, 8 out of the 10 teams in each league make the playoffs. Believe me, 46-48 isn't so bad

[kq76]

Sorry, that last post of mine probably came off a bit harsh. It's just that it bugs me that when one looks at the list of past MVP winners that one probably looks to it to be a list of the best players in the history of the game by year when it's often not the case. Certainly a list of the players that had the most impact on playoff races by year would also be very interesting to look at and remember or at least imagine those races, but I think it's at least slightly more important to remember the best players period by year.

The debate over what the MVP should be about is, I feel, in a way similar to the debate over the importance of wins and losses to a pitcher's worth. Some people say that a win-loss record is too much of a team stat to which I agree, but I feel that voting for the MVP based on glory is likewise basing it too much on a team's performance. After all, the award celebrates a player, not a team.

Separate the award into two you remove the ambiguity and in its place you create an additional way to remember and celebrate the game. One might say leaving in the ambiguity gets people talking about the game more, but so does allowing all out bench-clearing brawls so that doesn't say much. I certainly don't like arguing over it while I do very much like comparing who was the best as I'm sure I would just comparing who had the most playoff impact.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by kq76

Sorry, that last post of mine probably came off a bit harsh. It's just that it bugs me that when one looks at the list of past MVP winners that one probably looks to it to be a list of the best players in the history of the game by year when it's often not the case. Certainly a list of the players that had the most impact on playoff races by year would also be very interesting to look at and remember or at least imagine those races, but I think it's at least slightly more important to remember the best players period by year.

The debate over what the MVP should be about is, I feel, in a way similar to the debate over the importance of wins and losses to a pitcher's worth. Some people say that a win-loss record is too much of a team stat to which I agree, but I feel that voting for the MVP based on glory is likewise basing it too much on a team's performance. After all, the award celebrates a player, not a team.

Separate the award into two you remove the ambiguity and in its place you create an additional way to remember and celebrate the game. One might say leaving in the ambiguity gets people talking about the game more, but so does allowing all out bench-clearing brawls so that doesn't say much. I certainly don't like arguing over it while I do very much like comparing who was the best as I'm sure I would just comparing who had the most playoff impact.

That's actually one of the reasons why I bothered to start this thread - I was interested in seeing the debate between the masher from a .500 team or the best hitter on a championship team. Both worthy candidates for their own reasons, it's just a matter of the way you look at it. Different people have different views on what an MVP should be and should provide to his team. It's not Jensen's fault the rest of his team sucked, and had he not gotten hurt, he most likely would have won the Triple Crown himself (RBI may have been the stumbling point).

[BMW]

Originally Posted by kq76

Sorry, that last post of mine probably came off a bit harsh. It's just that it bugs me that when one looks at the list of past MVP winners that one probably looks to it to be a list of the best players in the history of the game by year when it's often not the case. Certainly a list of the players that had the most impact on playoff races by year would also be very interesting to look at and remember or at least imagine those races, but I think it's at least slightly more important to remember the best players period by year.

The debate over what the MVP should be about is, I feel, in a way similar to the debate over the importance of wins and losses to a pitcher's worth. Some people say that a win-loss record is too much of a team stat to which I agree, but I feel that voting for the MVP based on glory is likewise basing it too much on a team's performance. After all, the award celebrates a player, not a team.

Separate the award into two you remove the ambiguity and in its place you create an additional way to remember and celebrate the game. One might say leaving in the ambiguity gets people talking about the game more, but so does allowing all out bench-clearing brawls so that doesn't say much. I certainly don't like arguing over it while I do very much like comparing who was the best as I'm sure I would just comparing who had the most playoff impact.

It brings up an interesting point that I remember Bill James making once, when he talked about the importance documenting the stories of baseball's past rather than only the numbers.

I don't know that I frown that an odd player like Hal Neuhauser, Phil Rizutto or Zolio Versailles who won the MVP trophy. To me it somehow cries out that regardless if they didn't put up the most gaudy numbers of that season, that there was some consensus among a large group of voters who really thought that the player did something special that year.

You can go to any season and easily pick out the offensive juggernauts, but sometimes players who were merely good get lost to history pretty quickly. Carl Yastremski was probably the best player in the AL that year, I certainly don't need any help remembering that he was a good player. Not that the MVP should be a tool to help people remember more obscure stars from the past, mind you.

A player doesn't need to be a Hall of Famer to make an impact on the game for one season. Whenever we have a vote for MVP in one of my leagues, I always make it known that I'm in the playoff-impact camp and that I don't mind those who are in the most-potent-batter camp. You get voted in on people's opinions, and there's no written criteria that defines what is to be considered "most valuable."

[Oriole66]

Originally Posted by kq76

That's the best argument I've ever read for basing one's vote for the MVP on HRs and RBIs. I'm pretty square in the other camp that the MVP should go to the best player period, but I wouldn't at all have a problem with separating the award into 2: one for the best player period and another for, like you put it, the one who garnered the most glory.

I appreciate that you see the nuance there. I might be too loyal to the old school stat categories, but in playing OOTP you learn an appreciation for OPS and VORP.
I do believe that if players A, B and C had very high OPS numbers but A had the "good fortune" to drive in 25 more runs than B or C and the "happenstance" of being on a team that beat out the teams of B & C, I will give A my vote.