Triple Crown winner passed over for MVP

bailey · 06-10-2006, 01:47 AM

Fictional sim 154 game season no interleague

Player 1 (winner) -- Team finished 7th out of 8
HR 33 (6th)
RBI 95 (6th)
AVG .339 (2nd)
OBP .472 (1st)
SLG .612 (2nd)
VORP 97.2 (1st)
led the league in runs scored and walks.

Player 2 -- Team finished 2nd out of 8
HR 45 (1st)
RBI 127 (1st)
AVG .349 (1st)
OBP .415 (3rd)
SLG .658 (1st)
VORP 92.8 (2nd)
led the league in hits and doubles 2nd in runs scored.

Also, I think there should be a news item when someone wins the triple crown.

EDIT: with the patch

QuestGAV · 06-10-2006, 01:52 AM

What are their respective home park factors?

kq76 · 06-10-2006, 02:02 AM

I'm actually pleased to see this. Looking at their OBP, SLG, and VORPs I would definitely agree with the AI that player #1 was the better player. Now whether that's what most real life MLB voters would vote is highly doubtful, but it's how I would vote. RBIs are too dependant on your team, AVG is not better than OBP, and homers, while nice, are not everything. I also don't at all go along with that "only players on contending teams should be considered" for MVP thinking that some people have.

KurtBevacqua · 06-10-2006, 02:48 AM

Ted Williams lost MVP while winning the Crown IRL.

dodgecharger1968 · 06-10-2006, 03:41 AM

I think about the only excuse for a triple crown winner missing the MVP is based on the standings. If the guy's team was just awful, or someone almost as good was in first place, then I can see it. I don't see it in this situation.

kq76 · 06-10-2006, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

Ted Williams lost MVP while winning the Crown IRL.

Twice!

EDIT: I actually didn't know this until KB brought it up and I looked into it. I guess the voters deserve more credit than I gave them.

jbsnadb · 06-10-2006, 03:44 AM

I think the VORP alone tells the story.

darkcloud4579 · 06-10-2006, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dodgecharger1968

I think about the only excuse for a triple crown winner missing the MVP is based on the standings. If the guy's team was just awful, or someone almost as good was in first place, then I can see it. I don't see it in this situation.

It's all subjective.

jbsnadb · 06-10-2006, 04:46 AM

There's nothing subjective about a number. It's either higher or lower.

Zweiblumen · 06-10-2006, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dodgecharger1968

I think about the only excuse for a triple crown winner missing the MVP is based on the standings. If the guy's team was just awful, or someone almost as good was in first place, then I can see it. I don't see it in this situation.

I've always hated the idea that a player should win or lose MVP based on how well his teammates perform. To me this is silly. A player's stats alone should determine this award.

Raidergoo · 06-10-2006, 12:52 PM

. . .and the VORP stat said one was better than the other.

Syd Thrift · 06-10-2006, 01:16 PM

Perhaps in a future version we could manually set the criteria? Personally, I'd like to award Cy Youngs based on Bill James' Cy Young points system (which gives X number of points if you win 20 games and so on, and the pitcher with the most points is historically speaking the winner the vast majority of the time). We could probably come up with something similar for the MVP and ROTY. Making the whole thing editable or just the criteria would allow the stats-are-everything crowd to anoint their fan and the guy who wants "the guy with the 20 Leadership and the highest batting average" MVP would be happy as well.

DerekT · 06-10-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kq76

Twice!

EDIT: I actually didn't know this until KB brought it up and I looked into it. I guess the voters deserve more credit than I gave them.

Can you give more info here. I mean who did Ted Williams lose too and why.

Syd Thrift · 06-10-2006, 01:26 PM

In 1942 Teddy Ballgame won the Triple Crown the year before he left for the War but lost the MVP to a spry Yankee second baseman named Joe Gordon who had a career year. In 1947, he lost to some other guy named Joe. Both times he was clearly the better hitter but I don't think they understood OBP the way we do now. In fact, Williams' predilection towards taking a base was often used against him; people accused him of being satisfied with a walk when his team needed a hit. It's a preposterous argument, but that's the way people thought about the game at the time.

Cras · 06-10-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Williams' predilection towards taking a base was often used against him; people accused him of being satisfied with a walk when his team needed a hit. It's a preposterous argument, but that's the way people thought about the game at the time.

There are times when a hit is better than a BB. It is not to preposterous. Unless I am misunderstanding that there were some special circumstances involved.

If there is a guy at 2B with 1 out and the game is tied, I would much rather have a hit than a walk, because the walk does not advance the runner and it creates more force plays to setup a double play.

Syd Thrift · 06-10-2006, 01:35 PM

...and a walk still makes a homerun 50% more powerful. There are rare instances (2nd and 3rd, 2 outs and a weak hitter due up) where a hit is worth so much more than a walk that a player should abandon selectivity, but part of what made Ted Williams such a great player is that he got on base half the time he came to bat in some years. Maybe Barry Bonds has lulled us into thinking that's not such a huge deal, but it is. Also, it should be said that these skills are organic: much of Williams' ability to hit for average and power comes from his keen sense of what was a strike and what was a ball. In fact, his eye was probably the most extraordinary thing about the man.

Cras · 06-10-2006, 01:39 PM

The lead off walk is a grand thing,

and I do understand that a walk will allow for the three run home run.

I guess it then comes to my preference in style. I despise relying on the HR and much rather see the guy move the runner over and then get him in.

If it is early in the game, then you just want as many guys on base as you can, but if it is late in the game and you have a guy drawing a walk when he should be trying to move the runner over to tie or get the lead, I would get a bit angry. Being a Sox fan I have already gotten frustrated seeing Thome do that, but then it usually is all or nothing with that guy anyway.

battists · 06-30-2006, 11:32 AM

Guys, I'm moving this to the Closed forum. We're certainly open to more discussion on this topic, but I don't see anything here that is a clear-cut bug.

Steve

06-10-2006, 02:02 AM	#3
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 12,094	I'm actually pleased to see this. Looking at their OBP, SLG, and VORPs I would definitely agree with the AI that player #1 was the better player. Now whether that's what most real life MLB voters would vote is highly doubtful, but it's how I would vote. RBIs are too dependant on your team, AVG is not better than OBP, and homers, while nice, are not everything. I also don't at all go along with that "only players on contending teams should be considered" for MVP thinking that some people have. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project) For Beta/Devs: Full screen (1920x1080)

06-10-2006, 02:48 AM	#4
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,968	Ted Williams lost MVP while winning the Crown IRL. __________________ "The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man" - William Graham Sumner

06-10-2006, 01:39 PM	#17
Cras Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: LEO Posts: 3,789	The lead off walk is a grand thing, and I do understand that a walk will allow for the three run home run. I guess it then comes to my preference in style. I despise relying on the HR and much rather see the guy move the runner over and then get him in. If it is early in the game, then you just want as many guys on base as you can, but if it is late in the game and you have a guy drawing a walk when he should be trying to move the runner over to tie or get the lead, I would get a bit angry. Being a Sox fan I have already gotten frustrated seeing Thome do that, but then it usually is all or nothing with that guy anyway. __________________ The Chicago White Sox 1906, 1917, 2005 World Series Champions 1900, 1901, 1906, 1917, 1919, 1959, 2005 American League Champions 2000, 2005, 2008 American League Central Division Champions 1983, 1993 American League West Division Champions OOTP \| Orbiter \| SSMS \| FSX \| LoL \| MLP:FIM!

06-10-2006, 01:47 AM	#1
bailey Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,428	Triple Crown winner passed over for MVP Fictional sim 154 game season no interleague Player 1 (winner) -- Team finished 7th out of 8 HR 33 (6th) RBI 95 (6th) AVG .339 (2nd) OBP .472 (1st) SLG .612 (2nd) VORP 97.2 (1st) led the league in runs scored and walks. Player 2 -- Team finished 2nd out of 8 HR 45 (1st) RBI 127 (1st) AVG .349 (1st) OBP .415 (3rd) SLG .658 (1st) VORP 92.8 (2nd) led the league in hits and doubles 2nd in runs scored. Also, I think there should be a news item when someone wins the triple crown. EDIT: with the patch Last edited by bailey; 06-10-2006 at 01:50 AM.

06-10-2006, 01:52 AM	#2
QuestGAV Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 2,010	What are their respective home park factors?

06-10-2006, 03:41 AM	#5
dodgecharger1968 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 223	I think about the only excuse for a triple crown winner missing the MVP is based on the standings. If the guy's team was just awful, or someone almost as good was in first place, then I can see it. I don't see it in this situation.

06-10-2006, 03:44 AM	#7
jbsnadb All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,098	I think the VORP alone tells the story.

06-10-2006, 04:46 AM	#9
jbsnadb All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,098	There's nothing subjective about a number. It's either higher or lower.

06-10-2006, 12:52 PM	#11
Raidergoo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 9,005	. . .and the VORP stat said one was better than the other.

06-10-2006, 01:16 PM	#12
Syd Thrift Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,675	Perhaps in a future version we could manually set the criteria? Personally, I'd like to award Cy Youngs based on Bill James' Cy Young points system (which gives X number of points if you win 20 games and so on, and the pitcher with the most points is historically speaking the winner the vast majority of the time). We could probably come up with something similar for the MVP and ROTY. Making the whole thing editable or just the criteria would allow the stats-are-everything crowd to anoint their fan and the guy who wants "the guy with the 20 Leadership and the highest batting average" MVP would be happy as well.

06-10-2006, 01:26 PM	#14
Syd Thrift Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,675	In 1942 Teddy Ballgame won the Triple Crown the year before he left for the War but lost the MVP to a spry Yankee second baseman named Joe Gordon who had a career year. In 1947, he lost to some other guy named Joe. Both times he was clearly the better hitter but I don't think they understood OBP the way we do now. In fact, Williams' predilection towards taking a base was often used against him; people accused him of being satisfied with a walk when his team needed a hit. It's a preposterous argument, but that's the way people thought about the game at the time.

06-10-2006, 01:35 PM	#16
Syd Thrift Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,675	...and a walk still makes a homerun 50% more powerful. There are rare instances (2nd and 3rd, 2 outs and a weak hitter due up) where a hit is worth so much more than a walk that a player should abandon selectivity, but part of what made Ted Williams such a great player is that he got on base half the time he came to bat in some years. Maybe Barry Bonds has lulled us into thinking that's not such a huge deal, but it is. Also, it should be said that these skills are organic: much of Williams' ability to hit for average and power comes from his keen sense of what was a strike and what was a ball. In fact, his eye was probably the most extraordinary thing about the man.

06-30-2006, 11:32 AM	#18
battists Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18,506	Guys, I'm moving this to the Closed forum. We're certainly open to more discussion on this topic, but I don't see anything here that is a clear-cut bug. Steve