Posted by Got_Worms on 10/4/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):Posted by Jtpsops on 10/4/2017 12:38:00 PM (view original):Posted by dahsdebater on 10/2/2017 10:27:00 PM (view original):Jose Altuve away from Minute Maid Park - .381/.449/.633, 13 SB, 3 CS Nolan Arenado away from Coors Field - .283/.355/.531, 3 SB, 1 CS With his defense, I think it's fair to say that Arenado's away line is good enough for serious MVP consideration. OTOH, I think Blackmon's away stats aren't nearly good enough to merit serious consideration.Precisely. I never said Arenado was bad. In fact, I said he was very good. I just said I don't think he should be in the discussion for the game's best hitter. Guess what player this is: Split G GS PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+ Home 80 80 354 316 46 91 15 0 22 55 5 3 32 51 .288 .350 .544 .895 172 6 1 0 5 1 4 .278 128 130 Away 76 76 336 314 35 72 18 1 11 40 4 1 18 64 .229 .268 .398 .666 125 11 0 0 4 2 4 .251 71 80
Posted by Jtpsops on 10/4/2017 12:38:00 PM (view original):Posted by dahsdebater on 10/2/2017 10:27:00 PM (view original):Jose Altuve away from Minute Maid Park - .381/.449/.633, 13 SB, 3 CS Nolan Arenado away from Coors Field - .283/.355/.531, 3 SB, 1 CS With his defense, I think it's fair to say that Arenado's away line is good enough for serious MVP consideration. OTOH, I think Blackmon's away stats aren't nearly good enough to merit serious consideration.Precisely. I never said Arenado was bad. In fact, I said he was very good. I just said I don't think he should be in the discussion for the game's best hitter.
Posted by dahsdebater on 10/2/2017 10:27:00 PM (view original):Jose Altuve away from Minute Maid Park - .381/.449/.633, 13 SB, 3 CS Nolan Arenado away from Coors Field - .283/.355/.531, 3 SB, 1 CS With his defense, I think it's fair to say that Arenado's away line is good enough for serious MVP consideration. OTOH, I think Blackmon's away stats aren't nearly good enough to merit serious consideration.
Posted by Jtpsops on 10/4/2017 2:02:00 PM (view original):Another big indicator is XBH. Arenado has 54 more XBH at home for his career in roughly the same number of ABs, spread across 2B, 3B and HR. Camden significantly bumps Manny's HR numbers, but his 2B and 3B numbers are constant.
Posted by Jtpsops on 10/4/2017 2:00:00 PM (view original):Posted by Got_Worms on 10/4/2017 1:38:00 PM (view original):Posted by Jtpsops on 10/4/2017 12:38:00 PM (view original):Posted by dahsdebater on 10/2/2017 10:27:00 PM (view original):Jose Altuve away from Minute Maid Park - .381/.449/.633, 13 SB, 3 CS Nolan Arenado away from Coors Field - .283/.355/.531, 3 SB, 1 CS With his defense, I think it's fair to say that Arenado's away line is good enough for serious MVP consideration. OTOH, I think Blackmon's away stats aren't nearly good enough to merit serious consideration.Precisely. I never said Arenado was bad. In fact, I said he was very good. I just said I don't think he should be in the discussion for the game's best hitter. Guess what player this is: Split G GS PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+ Home 80 80 354 316 46 91 15 0 22 55 5 3 32 51 .288 .350 .544 .895 172 6 1 0 5 1 4 .278 128 130 Away 76 76 336 314 35 72 18 1 11 40 4 1 18 64 .229 .268 .398 .666 125 11 0 0 4 2 4 .251 71 80 Machado. What's your point? I never once said (or even implied) Machado was the best hitter in the game. And Machado's career splits are far closer to each other than Arenado's are. Their career road splits are actually very similar, further supporting the argument of the Coors Effect.
Posted by Jtpsops on 10/4/2017 12:37:00 PM (view original):MLB could fix all of this if they just do what the NFL does and have an Offensive Player of the Year Award. Cy Young Award - Pitchers Only Ted Williams Award - Hitters Only MVP - eligible to anyone, for however you define "value". Then great offensive seasons are recognized, and if you define value differently, you can still vote another player as MVP based on his contributions to his team.
Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out. Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.It's kind of a weird argument because Gibson was probably one of the best 2 or 3 players in the NL that year. Maybe Darryl Strawberry was a hair better, but really, Gibson should have been in the MVP discussion regardless of where the Dodgers finished in the standings. without much research here are 10 players who one might say had as good a season or better than Gibson did in 1988: Barry Larkin, Will Clark, Tony Gwynn, Kal Daniels, Darryl Strawberry, Andres Galarraga, Andy Van Slyke, Orel Hershiser, Danny Jackson and David Cone.I'd say the top 5 were Strawberry, Gibson, Galarraga, Clark, and Larkin. I wouldn't have a problem with any of them getting the award that year. The point is, you can make a credible argument that Gibson was actually the most valuable and leave the hero-narrative bullshit at the door.
Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out. Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.It's kind of a weird argument because Gibson was probably one of the best 2 or 3 players in the NL that year. Maybe Darryl Strawberry was a hair better, but really, Gibson should have been in the MVP discussion regardless of where the Dodgers finished in the standings. without much research here are 10 players who one might say had as good a season or better than Gibson did in 1988: Barry Larkin, Will Clark, Tony Gwynn, Kal Daniels, Darryl Strawberry, Andres Galarraga, Andy Van Slyke, Orel Hershiser, Danny Jackson and David Cone.
Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out. Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.It's kind of a weird argument because Gibson was probably one of the best 2 or 3 players in the NL that year. Maybe Darryl Strawberry was a hair better, but really, Gibson should have been in the MVP discussion regardless of where the Dodgers finished in the standings.
Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out. Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.
Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out. Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.
Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 3:25:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out. Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.It's kind of a weird argument because Gibson was probably one of the best 2 or 3 players in the NL that year. Maybe Darryl Strawberry was a hair better, but really, Gibson should have been in the MVP discussion regardless of where the Dodgers finished in the standings. without much research here are 10 players who one might say had as good a season or better than Gibson did in 1988: Barry Larkin, Will Clark, Tony Gwynn, Kal Daniels, Darryl Strawberry, Andres Galarraga, Andy Van Slyke, Orel Hershiser, Danny Jackson and David Cone.I'd say the top 5 were Strawberry, Gibson, Galarraga, Clark, and Larkin. I wouldn't have a problem with any of them getting the award that year. The point is, you can make a credible argument that Gibson was actually the most valuable and leave the hero-narrative bullshit at the door.If one were to look, would one discover that these were the top 5 players in WAR in the NL in 1988? Is that where you got this list from?
Posted by Got_Worms on 10/4/2017 1:41:00 PM (view original):Posted by sjpoker on 10/4/2017 11:49:00 AM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out. Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.You can be a Dodgers fan all you want, but really, you were probably like 7-10 in 1988 so I doubt you remember anything about it. So - again - you are probably basing all your observations off of stats. That pitching staff performed well, but most of those guys pitched WAY over their talent level. Tim Leary - beyond mediocre Belcher - yawn Valenzuela - He was already below league average Sutton - no comment needed Howell, Pena, Orosco in the bullpen? Meh. Again, Gibson provided things to his team that your stats can't measure. And thats what made him MVP. And he deserved it.Your analysis also proves my point that Hershiser should've been 1988 NL MVP. Where would the Dodgers be without him? He also accomplished the rare feat of earning NLCS and World Series MVP that season. 1988 Jay Howell is one of my favorite RP's in the SIM. He had an awesome year!! Player Team T IP /162 W L SV ERA WHIP OAV K/9 BB/9 SALARY F/R 1 Howell, Jay 1988 Los Angeles Dodgers R 66 5 3 21 2.08 1.00 .188 9.69 2.91 $2,748,160 C/C+
Posted by sjpoker on 10/4/2017 11:49:00 AM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out. Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.You can be a Dodgers fan all you want, but really, you were probably like 7-10 in 1988 so I doubt you remember anything about it. So - again - you are probably basing all your observations off of stats. That pitching staff performed well, but most of those guys pitched WAY over their talent level. Tim Leary - beyond mediocre Belcher - yawn Valenzuela - He was already below league average Sutton - no comment needed Howell, Pena, Orosco in the bullpen? Meh. Again, Gibson provided things to his team that your stats can't measure. And thats what made him MVP. And he deserved it.
Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 3:42:00 PM (view original):Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 3:25:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out. Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.It's kind of a weird argument because Gibson was probably one of the best 2 or 3 players in the NL that year. Maybe Darryl Strawberry was a hair better, but really, Gibson should have been in the MVP discussion regardless of where the Dodgers finished in the standings. without much research here are 10 players who one might say had as good a season or better than Gibson did in 1988: Barry Larkin, Will Clark, Tony Gwynn, Kal Daniels, Darryl Strawberry, Andres Galarraga, Andy Van Slyke, Orel Hershiser, Danny Jackson and David Cone.I'd say the top 5 were Strawberry, Gibson, Galarraga, Clark, and Larkin. I wouldn't have a problem with any of them getting the award that year. The point is, you can make a credible argument that Gibson was actually the most valuable and leave the hero-narrative bullshit at the door.If one were to look, would one discover that these were the top 5 players in WAR in the NL in 1988? Is that where you got this list from?They are not. According to Fangraphs, Van Slyke led the NL in WAR in 1988. Ozzie Smith and Brett Butler were #4 and #5. I haven't seen the BR rankings.
Posted by sjpoker on 10/4/2017 7:49:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 3:42:00 PM (view original):Posted by tecwrg on 10/4/2017 3:25:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 1:32:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 1:10:00 PM (view original):Posted by wylie715 on 10/4/2017 12:05:00 PM (view original):Posted by bad_luck on 10/4/2017 10:26:00 AM (view original):Um I'm a Dodger fan. That team wasn't mediocre. Well...the offense wasn't great but the pitching staff was. Hershiser threw like 280 innings with a 2 something ERA. Valenzuela was like the fourth best starter. And the bullpen was lights out. Gibson was huge as the only real threat in the lineup. And his WS homer was historic. But if Gibson wasn't the best player in the league (and I'm not arguing that), he wasn't the most valuable. A better player in Gibson's place would have lead to more wins.That may be true, but the Dodgers didn't have a better player than Gibson. Just because a better player might have been more valuable if he was on the team instead of Gibson, that does not make Gibson's value to the team any less.It's kind of a weird argument because Gibson was probably one of the best 2 or 3 players in the NL that year. Maybe Darryl Strawberry was a hair better, but really, Gibson should have been in the MVP discussion regardless of where the Dodgers finished in the standings. without much research here are 10 players who one might say had as good a season or better than Gibson did in 1988: Barry Larkin, Will Clark, Tony Gwynn, Kal Daniels, Darryl Strawberry, Andres Galarraga, Andy Van Slyke, Orel Hershiser, Danny Jackson and David Cone.I'd say the top 5 were Strawberry, Gibson, Galarraga, Clark, and Larkin. I wouldn't have a problem with any of them getting the award that year. The point is, you can make a credible argument that Gibson was actually the most valuable and leave the hero-narrative bullshit at the door.If one were to look, would one discover that these were the top 5 players in WAR in the NL in 1988? Is that where you got this list from?They are not. According to Fangraphs, Van Slyke led the NL in WAR in 1988. Ozzie Smith and Brett Butler were #4 and #5. I haven't seen the BR rankings.Which WAR was this? I get confused by all of them.
Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement
© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.