[...]the distinction between who will win and who should win makes the debate more complicated.

Actually, it's a three-way distinction: who will win, who should win, and who we want to win.

Negotiations are under way to have both writers step into Da Box to answer your questions. Please, hold your fire. When the ground rules are finalized, we'll let you know. One suggestion: while you're thinking about what to ask, consider how you would phrase the question if you could pose it in person. Sometimes, the relative anonymity of a fan Web site affects our rhetoric. It's a sign of respect that Baker and Griffin would contemplate doing this, and they deserve the same from us, even when they're wrong.

Cool.

The Baker piece on Ricciardi "clarifying" his comments is interesting too. And so is the headline where it says JP has a 'good' relationship with Tosca with the word good in quotes for some reason.

I will withhold comment of course except to say the original article could have been avoided altogether had the reporter involved bother to go back to JP or Tosca to get their view instead of taking the opportunity to confirm their long-held suspicions. This laziness and personal agenda is what calls the credibility of many of the TO sports media into question.

As much as I love the Jays and Roy Halladay the bottom line is that he now would be a long shot to win the Cy Young. If he went out and threw 3 straight shutouts it could turn but realistically other pitchers now have better numbers. Halladay gets huge run support and is a top 5 pitcher but look at Tim Hudson's numbers. The wins are down, but his ERA is a miniscule 2.40 and he has 23 quality starts. He also hasnt had the benefit of Halladays run support and Foulke has blown some wins that Hudson would have had. Halladays ERA is over a run higher and he has 4 less quality starts. Halladay is an ace and it is only a matter of time before he wins the Cy Young but not this year. I wont bring up Esteban Loaiza as it is bloody Loaiza so I have no comment!

Now having the two of them on here would be very interesting. In truth, due to the two of them, as well as Damien Cox, I have begun avoiding the Star almost entirely. It used to be my primary sports resource, but I have tired of the constant dagger throwing and not-so-well-hidden agendas. Bob Elliott has begun to sour me on the Sun's baseball coverage in much the same way, particulary with his griping about scouts' dismissals.

Griffin in particular has crossed the line so many times with his hatchet campaigns that I just don't bother with him. His list of targets is endless: Roger Clemens, David Wells, Carlos, JP, Sabremetrics, and on and on and on. The only thing he is capable of is making uninformed, below-the-belt, close-minded attacks. I'd be very interested to see how he explains his tone and approach.

Not only are Loaiza and Hudson both excellent Cy Young Award candidates, they are both (loaiza especially, in my opinion) excellent candidates for MVP.

If I were returning a ballot for AL MVP today, I would put Loaiza at the top, and Hudson in my top 5.

Agreed totally on the Star. Damien Cox is to the Leafs as Richard Griffin is to the Blue Jays. Why is there so much hate?

Yo, anyone else get a weirdo letter FedExed from the Blue Jays today about the logo change on Tuesday, and "special festivities planned prior to" the Wednesday game against the Yanks? They invite me, but they don't attach tickets. Me Grimlock not made of money! Anyone know what the "special festivities" are?

Re: Loaiza and Hudson as excellent candidates for MVP.

Surely A-Rod deserves to win this award once in his career? Ironically this isn't one of his best seasons, but it's plenty good enough.

I am one of those people who would have a hard time voting a pitcher for MVP. To me it still depends on who wins the West as both Brett Boone and Ichiro would be hard to vote against. Nomar would be on my ballot ahead of Arod this year as well. If the Royals win the Central this year Tony Pena gets my vote despite not playing!!!

Oh yes, A-Rod is good as always, and he'd be #2 on my ballot right now. I don't think he's been as valuable as Loaiza has been.

I wouldn't (salaries aside) trade A-Rod for five Esteban Loaizas, of course, but I think Loaiza's been a touch more valuable so far in 2003.

From SI's "This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse" Esteban Loaiza wins both the CY Young and MVP award. Based on who they pitch against Tim Hudson wins the award as he goes against the West due to the unbalanced schedule not the patsies of the Central division. Loaiza has been a revelation and a bargain for the Sox but to vote him for MVP pitching every 5th day vs say Magglio or even the smoking Frank Thomas is tough for me to justify. Arod has the stats but his team would stink with or without him. Nomar has slightly less power numbers, a better average and almost even in steals and runs scored and he plays for a contender so my vote goes his way.

Actually, I have a related awards question. Any new names we should be thinking about - beyond the usual suspects - as Gold Glove contenders?

Vernon Wells has clearly put himself forward (I don't thnik he'll win one though), I'm very impressed with Travis Lee, Marcus Giles has been outstanding, and Izturis is terrific.

And the NL needs some better defensive outfielders. Edmonds is a lock, I guess, and Jones should coast in, but who's got a third? Geoff Jenkins is looknig pretty good right now.

Brand new candidates only, huh? Can someone post up current defensive WS for some data points to ponder?

Juan Pierre wouldnt be a bad choice. He has to cover center at Pro Player between the fundamentally unsound Juan Encarcion and the converted third base rookie Miguel Cabera. He has played great defence and actually has more put outs then Andrew Jones.

Craig, I think Wells will win one this year -- not for his defense, of course, but because he's hitting the snid out of the ball. Either way he deserves it, but he wouldn't win it if he was having the same year, say, Terrence Long was.

And kudos for putting your (presumed) hatred of Loaiza aside and acknowledging the bizzaro-world year he's having -- as unlikely as it is. Hudson will have to win his last six (seven?) starts to seriously gain consideration, but he's been nearly as good as Esteban this year, save for the low-K rate.

Esteban for MVP? Interesting. Given the relative dearth of outstanding/career-year-having hitters, not a bad choice. Although the way Miggy's going, could he win the award again if he hits, say, .400 with a dozen homers and 30 RBIs in September? I'd love to see that, and you know the writers would too.

Griffin reminds me of a heel in professional wrestling. His job isn't to be a good writer, it's an act to sell controversy and thus sell papers.

That being said, I think there are a lot of interesting questions that both he and Baker could answer that would provide insight to their perspective.

Esteban Loaiza for MVP? Ugh, blah, yuck, ptooey, nertz, and yaargh. Besides, Tim Hudson's ERA is lower, and the White Sox have a functioning offense at the moment.

If Delgado's bat can come to life (or he can become healthy again - J.P.'s interview hinted that he's playing hurt), he still has a good shot at the MVP award, I think. Besides, he's still leading the league in RBI by a whole lot.

But, at some point, A-Rod deserves an MVP, and this is as good a year as any.

Damien Cox is to the Leafs as Richard Griffin is to the Blue Jays. Why is there so much hate?

I feel a little bit sorry for the Jays' long-time beat writers - they have had to show up at the SkyDome every day, even when the team was struggling and the Dome's ambience could best be described as "funereal". Day after day of sitting in an empty stadium watching bad baseball would probably sour me a little.

For what it's worth, I don't think Griffin hates the Jays - I think he just likes stirring up trouble (or is required to do it as part of his job description, which is to write something that will get people to buy the paper).

What's most interesting about interviewing Griffin and Baker, if it happens, is that both sides of the interview will have the opportunity to go to their respective forums (fora?) and sound off.

By the way: did Griffin or Baker ever play sports at a high level? I'm curious. (Some trivia I read in a media guide some years back: Fergie Olver once played in the White Sox chain, and apparently was Denny McLain's roommate in the minors, before McLain was drafted out of the Sox system by the Tigers.)

Dave, that's mind-blowing.

McLain and...Olver? "Traffic" meets..."Just Like Mom"?

Tim Hudson's ERA is lower, and the White Sox have a functioning offense at the moment.

Oakland is a pitcher's park, New Comiskey isn't. Oakland have the best defense in the AL, Chicago have an average defense. And despite those last two factors, Loaiza's allowing 0.3 runs per game less than Hudson... I don't give a pitcher credit for giving up unearned runs.

Also, Hudson is 13-4, while Loaiza is 17-6. Wanna know how many one- or two-run games Hudson's won this year? Two. Loaiza? Eight.

Hudson's close, he's not better though, despite the extra innings.

Oh yeah, Hudson's run support is 6.05 runs per game... Loaiza's is 5.22.

Sorry Dave, didn't mean to jump down your throat. Especially after you spoke so much sense about Griffin.

Re: A-Rod should win the MVP one year...

I don't think so. I'm not saying he won't, but I don't think the voters should go with the mentality "well, this might be a good year to give it to A-Rod..."
I think A-Rod has made his bed and now must lie in it. He chose to go to a lousy team. If he raises his game even more than he has since his arrival in Texas, and lifts them into a contention, then by all means, give him the MVP.
Alex is a tremendously talented player no doubt. I guess I'm from the school where the MVP should help his team accomplish something.

Cheers,
Chris

http://economics.about.com
He chose to go to a lousy team.

Yeah, what the heck was he thinking going from a team that had won 1 division title in the last 5 years to one that had won 3?

Mike

I just think Griffin is mean-spirited and dumb, always a lethal combo.

Clearly, the Mariners were a stronger club than the Rangers heading into '01; more fundamentally, there were several "better" teams that offered less money than Texas, leaving little doubt as to why A-Rod chose Texas. Mike, your Texas division-title argument is a lot like Roger Clemens' "Only one team has won two titles in the '90s" argument when he had his first Toronto press conference in 1996, after the Jays vastly outbid the field for his services.

Having said that, I don't quite agree that Texas was obviously en route to being "lousy," especially with A-Rod inserted into the lineup. It's not like he was joining the Tigers or Devil Rays.

Welcome to Batter's Box, Chris_B.

http://economics.about.com
Mike, your Texas division-title argument is a lot like Roger Clemens' "Only one team has won two titles in the '90s" argument when he had his first Toronto press conference in 1996, after the Jays vastly outbid the field for his services.

I'm not so sure about that. Sure the Rangers were 71-91 in 2000, but most sports publications at the time thought that it was an aberration, particular considering they had won 95 and 88 games in the two seasons before. It looked like the Rangers had the potential to be a great team, with 3 very good young players in Kapler, Lamb, and Catalanatto. Their only real weakness was pitching, but the owner had promised to spend the bucks to address that.

If you had picked 10 analysts to pick what the team of the future would be in the AL West, I guarantee you 9 of them would have picked the Rangers.

To suggest that it's A Rod's fault for going to a crappy team is complete revisionism. Of course, that's why there's so many people who love hindsight: you're always right.

Mike

I guess I'm from the school where the MVP should help his team accomplish something.

So if Tejada was on the Rangers last year and A-Rod was on the A's who would have been the MVP?

Said another way, why should Tejada have benefitted from having a better pitching staff? Or did Tejada's intangibles make the A's staff so superior to the Rangers?

I guarantee you 9 of them would have picked the Rangers.

And I say 10 out of 10 would have picked the Mariners, with their young pitching and Ichiro on the way, if A-Rod stayed. Look, I think it would have been a monumental mistake for A-Rod to sign anywhere else, simply because of the money Texas offered. I'd make that decision 1,000 times out of 1,000.

But it isn't revisionism to suggest that A-Rod chose Texas *not* because he thought it was his best opportunity for playoff success; everyone recognized that at the time. Texas yielded over 6 runs a game in 2000; saying that pitching was their "only real weakness" is a little like saying that the iceberg-related damage was the Titanic's "only real weakness." It is revisionism, though, to say that the Rangers were obviously about to flounder after signing Rodriguez...or to say that A-Rod "deserves" underrecognition for being on a bad team.

Having said that, I've found Robert Dudek's arguments to be very persuasive in the Bonds-Pujols thread. Win Shares, or a statistical analysis in the same vein, has got to be the best way to measure value -- actual production is rewarded, not expected or hypothetical production. Last year's win shares: A-Rod 35, Tejada 32. I'd vote for A-Rod.

But it was close, and arguable. I read an article last year from the Dallas Morning News, in which the Rangers beat writer loved A-Rod, saw 162 Rangers games, and saw A-Rod and Tejada go head-to-head some 20 times...and voted for Tejada.

By its very terms, the MVP rewards value to one's club, not an assessment of who the "best" player is. This argument should have never been started. I think that subjective assessments of a player's value can properly trump objective assessments IF a holistic objective assessment, like win shares, produces close results.

A-Rod should have won. But I'm not outraged.

http://economics.about.com
But it isn't revisionism to suggest that A-Rod chose Texas *not* because he thought it was his best opportunity for playoff success; everyone recognized that at the time.

Agreed.

Mike

Sorry Dave, didn't mean to jump down your throat. Especially after you spoke so much sense about Griffin.

No problem. :-) I admit to being biased, as for obvious reasons I definitely don't want Loaiza to win the Cy. He's definitely pitching well enough to earn it.

(Some trivia I read in a media guide some years back: Fergie Olver once played in the White Sox chain, and apparently was Denny McLain's roommate in the minors, before McLain was drafted out of the Sox system by the Tigers.)

Just checked the source (the 1987 media guide) - they were teammates, but not necessarily roommates. They were teammates in 1962, in Harlan, Kentucky.

Is there some sort of hazard/bonus pay involved for living in Harlan, Kentucky?

Here's what I think happened to Loaiza. He came home and anounced to his wife that he had signed with the Sox, he carefully avoided how much he would be making. After further scutiny the Mrs. found out how much the salary was and went ballistic. (She's probably one of those firey latin types; hubba, hubba.) "How am I expected to live on 500k? What kind of provider are you to these children? If you don't straiten up and fly right Mr. no sex for you." Or words to that effect. Hell hath no .... It seems to have worked and is another reason for not offering long term contracts; spousal contentment.