From: TheRock1525 | #049 If Felix had won about the same number sure. Felix was a .500 pitcher, and should not have received a single vote (I don't know if the ballot goes 3, 5, or 10 deep, it is irrelevant though, because he should not have got any of them). Felix failed in the only thing he is there to do, win games. Verlandeer this year was outstanding, he won, he won alot, he always won after his team lost. He carried his team. Felix had no business getting close to the award, let alone winning it.
This is what MWC actually believes. Like, honest to goodness, he thinks this is logical thinking.
In 2010, Felix Hernandez had THE LOWEST RUN SUPPORT IN THE ENTIRE GOD DAMN LEAGUE. Give CC that type of run support in 2010 and he finishes below .500, genius.
Like, if you just admit "Hey, it's all just an act. I'm not this sports illiterate" then we'll all have a good laugh, maybe share a beer or something down the road.
I don't care how good your other stats are, and I admitted in a vacuum Felix had some good stats. However, you are paid to win games, he did not even do his job that year, let alone earn the Cy Young. At the end of the day, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.
Again, **** all these Sabre nerds who turned Baseball into this joke.
Nah, there's a pretty clear distinction between "Most Valuable" and "Best."
If you're reading the dictionary, sure. I just have a hard time believing that was the actual intent when these awards were first thought of. I've always thought it should go to the best. And Barry Bonds didn't win because he was a jerk to the media and everyone assumed he was on roids.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Bonds still won quite a few MVP awards even during that stretch of years, but really, if you want to give it to the best, then he should've won it at least 5 years straight.
But regardless, "original intent" isn't really all that relevant now. Meanings change, and the way people view things changes.
I mean, if you want to view the MVP award as "Just give it to the best player," that's fine. I disagree, but that's fine.
--
I want to be SuperNiceDog for Halloween! http://img.imgcake.com/leonpngpe.png http://img.imgcake.com/squalloweenpngem.png
I mean, if you want to view the MVP award as "Just give it to the best player," that's fine. I disagree, but that's fine.
I just think it's incredibly boring how so many of these awards have become the "Most Famous Player on the Best Team" award. The NFL has become particularly bad about this. The last time anybody other than a QB or RB won it was Lawrence Taylor, and I think it's entirely possible that even the RBs days are numbered...
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Honestly, it's much harder to judge the value of defensive players relative to offensive players because there aren't any relevant stats to "measure" it. The easiest position to judge in football is QB, and that's why so many of them win. It's also the most important position, so that adds to it.
--
"I couldn't stand a day without a past or SuperNiceDog. I need to live each moment to keep fighting here and now."
LeonhartFour posted... Honestly, it's much harder to judge the value of defensive players relative to offensive players because there aren't any relevant stats to "measure" it. The easiest position to judge in football is QB, and that's why so many of them win. It's also the most important position, so that adds to it.
I disagree.
Just because you don't have stats to stare at doesn't mean you can't watch a game and see how valuable a defensive player is.
edit - disagree about the harder to judge the value part. QB is the most important position is true.
But how do you determine if he's the most valuable?
Aren't the people who vote on these things supposed to be "experts"? Shouldn't they be able to figure it out just by watching? I mean, the average fan can watch a Ravens game and be like "Hey, that Ray Lewis guy is pretty valuable" so why can't the so-called-experts just extend that basic "eye test" to the whole team/league?
I dunno. I think you need something more than just "the eye test," but that's just me.
But really, the easiest thing to do would be for the NFL just to do an offensive MVP and a defensive MVP. Well, I guess that's what "Defensive Player of the Year" is for, but yeah.
-- SuperNiceDog Guru racing with motion controls: http://i52.tinypic.com/2zfiu09.gif http://i54.tinypic.com/10729w2.gif
From: LeonhartFour | #067 I dunno. I think you need something more than just "the eye test," but that's just me.
But really, the easiest thing to do would be for the NFL just to do an offensive MVP and a defensive MVP. Well, I guess that's what "Defensive Player of the Year" is for, but yeah.
See, you're making a point that benefits the other argument again!
If we trust them to judge things like who the Defensive Player of the Year is, or to select which Linebacker should "first team all-pro" or whatever they do in college, why can't they apply whatever logic they do to selecting those honors to simply include those guys in the overall MVP discussion?
I don't know exactly the best way to judge who the best offensive lineman is, but people whose entire career is based around watching and analyzing football should know that. Maybe instead of the media, we should have NFL scouts vote on these things or something.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From: SmartMuffin | #068 If we trust them to judge things like who the Defensive Player of the Year is, or to select which Linebacker should "first team all-pro" or whatever they do in college, why can't they apply whatever logic they do to selecting those honors to simply include those guys in the overall MVP discussion?
Because picking out the best linebacker among all linebackers is different than picking the best player in the league period.
I'm just speaking from a personal perspective. For me, it's difficult to make a judgment call between offense and defense because they do different things.
-- SuperNiceDog forced me to retreat in shame from the Guru: http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab48/Leonhart4/Squall.jpg
From: 14_and_counting | #051 I don't care how good your other stats are, and I admitted in a vacuum Felix had some good stats. However, you are paid to win games, he did not even do his job that year, let alone earn the Cy Young. At the end of the day, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.
Again, **** all these Sabre nerds who turned Baseball into this joke.
Hahaha, what the hell. How can anyone actually believe this?
I just try to think of it as "how much worse would this team be without this specific player". For example, a team like the Jets missing Darrelle Revis would be as bad as some teams in the league missing their starting quarterback. He's that important to the team.
It's also why I like to joke about Peyton Manning winning MVP this year. He is clearly the most valuable player in the league in terms of what he brings to his team, because they are HORRENDOUS without him, but are annually playoff bound with him. He is just THAT good for his team. There are a couple other players out there like him, where they are literally carrying their team around, and it's not only quarterbacks and running backs.
I've always figured "most valuable" meant "most valuable in the league, in other words the best player period.
I don't care how good your other stats are, and I admitted in a vacuum Felix had some good stats. However, you are paid to win games, he did not even do his job that year, let alone earn the Cy Young. At the end of the day, YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.
No, you get paid to pitch well. Baseball is for the most part an individual sport masquerading as a team sport, and as such you should make determinations of quality based on statistics they can control. Otherwise you may as well determine the MVP via astrology.
--
SubDeity wants to vote for Calvin Coolidge. [Evil Republican] Play Der Langrisser.
Aren't the people who vote on these things supposed to be "experts"? Shouldn't they be able to figure it out just by watching? I mean, the average fan can watch a Ravens game and be like "Hey, that Ray Lewis guy is pretty valuable" so why can't the so-called-experts just extend that basic "eye test" to the whole team/league?
Well, for starters, who has time to watch every single game, especially in college football?
--
SubDeity wants to vote for Calvin Coolidge. [Evil Republican] Play Der Langrisser.
I'm just speaking from a personal perspective. For me, it's difficult to make a judgment call between offense and defense because they do different things.
If you really believed this, you wouldn't support a system that picks a QB as MVP 80% of the time and an RB 18% of the time. The implicit statement of the current system is "offense is superior to defense" not "it's too hard to judge because they do different things." If it was truly "too hard to judge" then we'd see an approximate equal distribution of MVP awards among all positions.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From: SmartMuffin | #074 I'm just speaking from a personal perspective. For me, it's difficult to make a judgment call between offense and defense because they do different things.
If you really believed this, you wouldn't support a system that picks a QB as MVP 80% of the time and an RB 18% of the time. The implicit statement of the current system is "offense is superior to defense" not "it's too hard to judge because they do different things." If it was truly "too hard to judge" then we'd see an approximate equal distribution of MVP awards among all positions.
I said it's too hard "for me."
--
I want to be SuperNiceDog for Halloween! http://img.imgcake.com/leonpngpe.png http://img.imgcake.com/squalloweenpngem.png
People who are paid to do it. It's their ****ing job!!!
They aren't paid to watch it, they're paid to write about it. Nobody is pulling down a paycheck for just watching a game. Even if they did make watching their full-time job, one could only watch, say, 20 games a week, tops.
--
SubDeity wants to vote for Calvin Coolidge. [Evil Republican] Play Der Langrisser.
XD did somebody seriously point out Luck's passing stats in his game against Washington? Does he even realize that Stanford won that game by 50 points? This game was a shootout all the way and RGFraud did nothing.
Not that we had to wait until this game to know that he had no business winning the Heisman. This game already exists:
Brandon Weeden led 7 touchdown drives before RGJoke managed to punch one in. I don't care how bad your defense is and whether your losing by 7 or 100, a Heisman Trophy winning QB should not be shut out for an entire half when he has 8 possessions.
It was a nice touch padding his stats with a 1 yard TD run in the final minute of a 59-17 game though.
And I love the "sabre nerds" comment, because Hernandez kicked CC's ass in non-sabr (or traditional) stats.
ERA: 2.27 vs. 3.18 Strikeouts/9: 8.4 vs. 7.5 Walks/9: 2.5 vs. 2.8 Strikeout/Walks: 3.31 vs. 2.66 WHIP: 1.06 vs. 1.19
Felix was better in ERA, Strikeouts/9, Walks/9, SO/BB ratio, and WHIP. All non-sabr stats. All stats that even your 80 year old MLB fan would accept. So your "sabre nerds" comment is so ridiculous that even you have to realize how ridiculous you sound.
Hannyabal posted... From: 14_and_counting | #038 Luck was an objectively BETTER QB, surrounded by a worse team, ...you must be kidding. You think Stanford minus Luck is worse than Baylor minus RGIII?
Not counting defense (hell, the Big XII does not even PLAY defense, why should I count it?). Yes. RG3 was surrounded by better offense than Luck. Lucks receivers ****Ed him over so many times this year.