Bill James has a pretty interesting new article comparing the 20 MVP winners of each decade to the best 20 seasons (by Win Shares) of that same decade. One comment that struck me as odd:

There has never been a decade in which even one-half of the 20 MVPs make the list of the 20 best seasons of the decade. The primary reason that this happens, though, is not generalized ignorance; it is, rather, the reluctance to give the MVP Award to the same players every year. Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Musial, Mays, Mantle, Mike Schmidt and Mike Trout are much more heavily represented on the "20 best seasons of the decade" list than on the MVP list. And I think I agree with that, generally speaking. I don’t know that it accomplishes anything to give players of that caliber the MVP Award every year. We KNOW how great Mike Trout has been. We don’t need to be told that every voting cycle.

Assuming baseball writers are actually "redistributing the wealth" with their MVP votes, why would anyone agree with that? If a player deserves to win the MVP award 5 times in a row, why not give it to him 5 times in a row?

Bill James does amazing research and data- but I find I often find myself in complete disagreement to his "opinions"

A truly ridiculous comment on its face. Hard to believe Bill James even said that. And once you get rid of the obligation to give the MVP Award to the most deserving player, everything is in play. Give it to the most colorful player. Give it to the most popular. Give it to the player with the coolest name. Give it to the LEAST deserving -- some journeyman who struggled to break the Mendoza Line and had hands of stone, but think how excited his friends & family would be. And what a great story for the grandkids -- Grandpa hit .206 in 53 games, made an error on every five chances BUT WON THE MVP! And while we're at it, why give the pennant to the team who wins the most games every year? How boring were those old Yankee franchises? Everyone knew they were great. Instead of giving the pennant to the `53 Yankees for the fifth season in a row, how great would it have been to give it to the last place Browns? A whole city delirious with joy. Strike a blow against the totalitarian yoke of meritocracy, excellence and elitism. For that matter, why restrict the Hall of Fame to the best players? Everyone knows their names. Sprinkle in some really mediocre ones. Oh, never mind... that already happens.

Quote post by thunder1008 on 11/16/2021 1:31:00 AM:

"Give it to the LEAST deserving"

Great overall post, but this specifically reminded me of back in the day American Idol with their spoof 'Vote for the Worst' balloting. Some horrible talent actually made it quite far. Good times. Where have you gone Sanjaya ?!

I remember years ago a Canadian actor (might have been Eugene Levy) being asked on a talk show about the differences between America and his homeland. And he said something like: "In a Canadian beauty pageant we give first prize to the ugliest girl, because the prettiest girl already has something."

Babe Ruth won the MVP once. That is mind blowing.

From b-r.com: "In the AL, until 1930 player-managers and previous winners were ineligible." So Ruth won in 1923, then never received another vote again until 1931 when he finished 5th, despite leading the AL that season in WAR, HR, OBP, SLG and OPS. I'm guessing some of the voters really liked the old rule and were deciding on the MVP as if it were still in effect.

Posted by thunder1008 on 11/16/2021 1:31:00 AM (view original):
A truly ridiculous comment on its face. Hard to believe Bill James even said that. And once you get rid of the obligation to give the MVP Award to the most deserving player, everything is in play. Give it to the most colorful player. Give it to the most popular. Give it to the player with the coolest name. Give it to the LEAST deserving -- some journeyman who struggled to break the Mendoza Line and had hands of stone, but think how excited his friends & family would be. And what a great story for the grandkids -- Grandpa hit .206 in 53 games, made an error on every five chances BUT WON THE MVP! And while we're at it, why give the pennant to the team who wins the most games every year? How boring were those old Yankee franchises? Everyone knew they were great. Instead of giving the pennant to the `53 Yankees for the fifth season in a row, how great would it have been to give it to the last place Browns? A whole city delirious with joy. Strike a blow against the totalitarian yoke of meritocracy, excellence and elitism. For that matter, why restrict the Hall of Fame to the best players? Everyone knows their names. Sprinkle in some really mediocre ones. Oh, never mind... that already happens.

CALM DOWN THUNDERBRAINS EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OKAY

Not sure what the outrage is about... We all know this happens. Barry Bonds should have won it for 10-12 straight years, but didn't win it some years because (a) he was a dick, (b) voters were tired of giving it to him, (c) some years the Giants sucked, and (d) he was a dick.

The greater outrage is that baseball writers get to decide, and they're biased and petty and hold grudges.

Posted by toddcommish on 11/17/2021 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Not sure what the outrage is about... We all know this happens. Barry Bonds should have won it for 10-12 straight years, but didn't win it some years because (a) he was a dick, (b) voters were tired of giving it to him, (c) some years the Giants sucked, and (d) he was a dick.

The greater outrage is that baseball writers get to decide, and they're biased and petty and hold grudges.

About 10 years back, over the course of a week, I had a running email exchange with an NFL HOF voter (yes, I too was shocked he even deigned to converse with me, but he seemed to take it upon himself to "educate" me).

His reasoning for why he didn't vote for a particular defensive player was pretty wild. Of course, it made perfect sense to him, but he and I couldn't have been farther apart on weighing the importance of his primary criterion, which had nothing to do with the player's individual performance or accomplishments/lack thereof.

The voters are no different nor any more enlightened than the rest of us, some of them much less so. They simply chose the correct line of work and now have a silly amount of power. And boy do they relish it.

Posted by jmcraven74 on 11/17/2021 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 11/17/2021 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Not sure what the outrage is about... We all know this happens. Barry Bonds should have won it for 10-12 straight years, but didn't win it some years because (a) he was a dick, (b) voters were tired of giving it to him, (c) some years the Giants sucked, and (d) he was a dick.

The greater outrage is that baseball writers get to decide, and they're biased and petty and hold grudges.

About 10 years back, over the course of a week, I had a running email exchange with an NFL HOF voter (yes, I too was shocked he even deigned to converse with me, but he seemed to take it upon himself to "educate" me).

His reasoning for why he didn't vote for a particular defensive player was pretty wild. Of course, it made perfect sense to him, but he and I couldn't have been farther apart on weighing the importance of his primary criterion, which had nothing to do with the player's individual performance or accomplishments/lack thereof.

The voters are no different nor any more enlightened than the rest of us, some of them much less so. They simply chose the correct line of work and now have a silly amount of power. And boy do they relish it.

Reminds me of when I tried to tell somebody that Quentin Jammer was a good NFL corner. And he would say “he never led the league in INTs.”

Some people’s logic is just baffling.

Posted by toddcommish on 11/17/2021 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Not sure what the outrage is about... We all know this happens. Barry Bonds should have won it for 10-12 straight years, but didn't win it some years because (a) he was a dick, (b) voters were tired of giving it to him, (c) some years the Giants sucked, and (d) he was a dick.

The greater outrage is that baseball writers get to decide, and they're biased and petty and hold grudges.

twice dick but no juice

you yourself

a baseball writer

Posted by jmcraven74 on 11/17/2021 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 11/17/2021 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Not sure what the outrage is about... We all know this happens. Barry Bonds should have won it for 10-12 straight years, but didn't win it some years because (a) he was a dick, (b) voters were tired of giving it to him, (c) some years the Giants sucked, and (d) he was a dick.

The greater outrage is that baseball writers get to decide, and they're biased and petty and hold grudges.

About 10 years back, over the course of a week, I had a running email exchange with an NFL HOF voter (yes, I too was shocked he even deigned to converse with me, but he seemed to take it upon himself to "educate" me).

His reasoning for why he didn't vote for a particular defensive player was pretty wild. Of course, it made perfect sense to him, but he and I couldn't have been farther apart on weighing the importance of his primary criterion, which had nothing to do with the player's individual performance or accomplishments/lack thereof.

The voters are no different nor any more enlightened than the rest of us, some of them much less so. They simply chose the correct line of work and now have a silly amount of power. And boy do they relish it.

Great point.