Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - This Day In Baseball: 18 August 2005

This Day In Baseball: 18 August 2005

I think I was the best baseball player I ever saw.
-- Willie Mays

Well, yeah.

Today it's the National League MVP, and these choices aren't exactly getting easier.

At this point, the NL MVP is a two-man battle between a pair of first basemen from the Central Division. Albert Pujols is basically doing what Albert Pujols has done ever since he arrived in the major leagues. Derrek Lee of the Cubs, while always a very good player indeed, is having the year of his life. Both are, as far as I can tell, very good defensive players as well, so that part of the game is a wash.

Pujols has an advantage in some of the counting stats - he's scored and driven in more runs - but these are both rather heavily team-dependent, and he plays on a much better team.

On the other hand, Derrek Lee gets to do half of his hitting at Wrighey Field.

Both players - both! - are still well positioned to win the Triple Crown. That hasn't been done in the National League for about 70 years. It hasn't always guaranteed winning the MVP Award, as Ted Williams could have told you, but I think in 2005 it would make things automatic.

There really isn't a dime's worth of difference between them at the moment. And I'm worried too, that because Pujols does this every year, it doesn't impress us quite as much as Derrek Lee playing this well for the first time. Cal Ripken beat out Eddie Murray for the 1983 MVP Award under similar circumstances - it was Ripken's first great year, whereas for Murray it was just another great year.

Not a dime's worth of difference, but my nickel goes to Lee - I think he's been a tiny, tiny bit better than Albert so far. This is probably going to be settled by how they play over the next six weeks.

The ballot:

1. Derrek Lee
2. Albert Pujols
3. Morgan Ensberg
4. Andruw Jones
5. Roger Clemens
6. Miguel Cabrera
7. Chris Carpenter
8. Bobby Abreu
9. Jason Bay
10. Carlos Delgado

Today's action:

AL
Texas (Wilson 0-5, 8.89) at Cleveland (Westbrook 10-13, 4.70) 12:05
Seattle (Franklin 6-12, 4.99) at Minnesota (Mays 5-8, 5.03) 8:10
Boston (Wakefield 12-9, 4.07) at Los Angeles (Colon 15-6, 3.44) 10:05

NL
San Francisco (Tomko 7-12, 4.67) at Cincinnati (Ortiz 7-8, 5.65) 12:35
Washington (Armas 7-5, 4.33 and Drese 7-12, 5.67) at Philadelphia (Padilla 5-11, 4.65 and Lidle 9-10, 4.61) 1:05
San Diego (Peavy 10-5, 3.14) at Florida (Beckett 11-6, 3.31) 7:35
Pittsburgh (Duke 5-0, 2.13) at New York (Zambrano 6-9, 4.16) 7:10
Los Angeles (Weaver 10-8, 4.52) at Atlanta (Thomson 3-2, 3.70) 7:35
Milwaukee (Ohka 7-7, 3.82) at Houston (Clemens 11-4, 1.32) 8:05
Arizona (Vargas 6-6, 4.57) at St.Louis (Marquis 9-11, 4.22) 8:10

Posted by Magpie on Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 12:05 PM EDT.

This Day In Baseball: 18 August 2005 | 25 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Jordan - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 12:37 PM EDT (#126031) #

Not only have the Royals lost 18 straight games, which is nearing record territory, but Alex Gordon, their top draft pick, has enrolled in classes for September and is threatening to sit out the year and re-enter the draft for 2007. That used to be a mighty franchise.

Magpie - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 12:56 PM EDT (#126032) #

Ricciardi was saying last night on WWJP that he wouldn't want the KC job - he said it would drive him crazy. He said you can stand the losing, barely, if there's a plan and there's hope and you're trying to move forward. But this would make him want to jump off a bridge. He blamed it on ownership that isn't interested in making a commitment to winning. He has a lot of sympathy for Allard Baird.

Mick Doherty - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 12:56 PM EDT (#126034) #

Pujols should win. Lee will win. Wouldn't it be something if Clemens won MVP but not Cy Young? You can make an argument.

Magpie - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 01:02 PM EDT (#126035) #

You can make an argument.

I ask, in all innocence, what the argument would be. But this is because I'm kind of a stubborn fanatic about the MVP being the best player - that's what I think "most valuable" means. I'm asuming the logic would be something like "Carpenter is the best pitcher in the league and gets my Cy Young Vote - but Clemens means more to Houston than anybody else means to their team, so Roger gets my MVP vote." Is that the argument?

Yeah, that position will get some support.

In my mind of course, if Carpenter has been the best pitcher in the league, he's meant more to St. Louis than Clemens has meant to Houston.

Magpie - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 01:09 PM EDT (#126037) #

I felt a pressing need to add a couple more sentences on the Pujols-Lee contest. Mainly I remembered Murray-Ripken in 1983. And while I think Lee has been a little better, I would still be delighted if Pujols won. He's been a great player ever since he arrived.

Mick Doherty - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 01:10 PM EDT (#126038) #

Yes, that's close to where I would make an argument, though I don't hold that position, either.

What I meant, really, is that you can argue it WILL (not should) happen -- if Pujols and Lee evenly split the "pitchers should never win the MVP" voter and Clemens goes 9-0 down the stretch, but the Astros end up the Wild Card and Carpenter wins the Cy because of the bogus voter bias for "best pitcher on a division winner" ... sure, a lot of cards (or Cards) have to fall just right, but it's not like Clemens is going to split any votes with any teammates.

Mick Doherty - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 01:12 PM EDT (#126039) #

That's wrong of me, of course. I can't get used to the idea of "Morgan Ensberg, viable MVP candidate." What planet is this?

Pistol - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 01:19 PM EDT (#126040) #

"But this is because I'm kind of a stubborn fanatic about the MVP being the best player - that's what I think "most valuable" means."

I totally agree. You shouldn't reward or penalize a player because of his teammates or situation. I don't think you should vote for Pujols because 'his team is in the playoffs' while voting against Lee because his team isn't. It's not like either player has an impact on his teammates. If it was a pickup game and they were the captains choosing sides, perhaps.

John Northey - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#126042) #

To me the teams place in the standings is only relevent if they are so close as to make it hard to pick. ie: a tie breaker. Although I doubt I'll ever forget how it seemed in 1987 when many felt if the Jays won the east that Bell would be MVP and if the Tigers did Trammell would be, then Bell won despite the Tigers getting the division thanks in large part to 'clutch' play by Trammell and a horrid slump by Bell in the last week. Go figure.

Magpie - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 01:44 PM EDT (#126044) #

Go figure

The voters were on drugs. That was the same year Andre Dawson won for leading the Cubs to a sixth place finish.

Jordan - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 02:29 PM EDT (#126050) #

Here's my personal pet peeve on the MVP voting: all those nomination slots on the ballot. How does it mean anything to call someone "the sixth-most valuable player" in the league? Really, what's the point of multiple selections at all? Your first-place vote is your choice as the most valuable player; your second-place vote is irrelevant, because you think someone else is better than him. Why mention him at all, then?

I say cut off the nominations at three, and the second two are entirely for tie-breaking purposes. Has anyone ever won the MVP award on the basis of anything but first- or second-place votes? Has a third-place vote ever affected an MVP race? And even if it has, can we safely agree that no fourth-place vote has ever meant anything to an MVP race?

Here's my wager: if you took all the ballots cast for MVP this year and dropped all of them but the top three, the final results would be the same. And I'd even be willing to bet that if you dropped all but the top two, the results would be the same again.

My votes right now would be:

1. Derrek Lee
2. Albert Pujols
3. Andruw Jones

Only the first two guys have any shot at the award, and a second-place vote would be necessary for tie-breaking. But I don't see the point of nominating any player beyond the top three.

Mike Green - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 02:46 PM EDT (#126058) #

Lee followed by Pujols would be on my ballot right now. It reminds me of 1993. Olerud had the better season than Thomas, but Thomas won because he was the better player. If Lee and Pujols continue as they have been, I expect Pujols to win.

Pistol - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 02:54 PM EDT (#126059) #

"Has anyone ever won the MVP award on the basis of anything but first- or second-place votes? Has a third-place vote ever affected an MVP race? And even if it has, can we safely agree that no fourth-place vote has ever meant anything to an MVP race?"

Go back to the 99 AL MVP award.

Place	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	
Pudge	7	6	7	0	5	2	1	28
Pedro	8	6	4	1	2	2	3	26

Points	14	9	8	7	6	5	4	
Pudge	98	54	56	0	30	10	4	252
Pedro	112	54	32	7	12	10	12	239

Counting only 1st place votes:	
Pudge	98						
Pedro	112						

2nd place votes	
Pudge	152						
Pedro	166						

3rd					
Pudge	208						
Pedro	198						
							
4th							
Pudge	208						
Pedro	205						

5th							
Pudge	238						
Pedro	217						

6th							
Pudge	248						
Pedro	227						

7th							
Pudge	252						
Pedro	239

So the difference in the 99 AL MVP was the third place votes.

If there were only 3 votes and a 5-3-1 scoring setup Pedro actually would have been the MVP that year (62-60).

Mick Doherty - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 03:32 PM EDT (#126064) #

Wow, Pistol. Give that man a No-Prize!

Pistol - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 03:47 PM EDT (#126066) #

I was channeling Magpie when I was posting that.

Jordan - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 03:55 PM EDT (#126067) #

Great detective work, Pistol. As I surmised, the fourth-place and subsequent votes didn't affect the final outcome. While it's true that a 5-3-1 system would've produced a different result, I suspect voters might have arranged their ballots differently had there been a two-point, not one-point, difference between the ballot positions.

The fact that Pedro received more first-place votes than Pudge supports the idea that he was the worthier selection. More voters said Pedro was the best choice for MVP than thought Pudge was the best choice -- I think that just reinforces the value of a weighted 5-3-1 system that Pistol suggests.

Pistol - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 05:08 PM EDT (#126072) #

Just for the record, I wasn't advocating a 5-3-1 setup, just showing what it would be for a 5-3-1 setup as that's how the other awards are 'scored'.

Magpie - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 05:37 PM EDT (#126073) #

Of course, Derek Jeter should have won the 1999 MVP.

I may have ben channelling Tim McCarver when I said that, but nevertheless...

Ron - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 07:44 PM EDT (#126079) #

I'm looking to purchase a baseball book.

Has anybody read The Northern Game by Bob Elliot or License to Deal by Jerry Crasnick?

If so any thoughts?

GregH - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 09:42 PM EDT (#126086) #

"Has anybody read The Northern Game by Bob Elliot"

I finished this book about a month ago. It is certainly worth reading and is full of interesting stuff about Canadian players, both well-known and not so well-known. From time-to-time it seemed a little disjointed - the main theme is that Canadian ball players are different because of their "hockey mentality", but that notion doesn't seem to apply consistently to all the players discussed.

A secondary theme, which I think could have been developed more fully, is the idea of baseball being passed from father to son, as clearly happened in Elliot's own family.

I'm not sure the book is worth buying - I borrowed a copy at the local library. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, but I'm not sure I'd want to read it again (usually my main criterion in deciding whether to buy a book or to borrow it).

Mick Doherty - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 10:12 PM EDT (#126090) #

Has anyone ever won the MVP award on the basis of anything but first- or second-place votes?

Well, I can't find the complete balloting anywhere online and some industrious Bauxite may prove me wrong, but I'd imagine that Willie Stargell and Keith Hernandez both owe something to down-ballot points contributing to their 1979 NL Co-MVP.

Dave Winfield was a not-too-distant third, so I am assuming the fourth+ place votes played a role.

Matthew E - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 10:13 PM EDT (#126091) #

Think of this: the Jays have 63 wins right now. They only had 67 all last year. They could catch up to that on this road trip.

Last year haunts me.

HippyGilmore - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 10:23 PM EDT (#126093) #

Zach Duke just had yet another teriffic game (7 IP, 2 hits, no runs). Take a peek at his minor league record, and tell me: Does he look startlingly like a young Greg Maddux, or is it just me?

Joe - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 11:34 PM EDT (#126097) #

Remember how Paul Quantrill was 'done' after Torre overused him last season? Since being acquired by the Padres, everything's gone back to normal: his strikeouts are back up, his ERA is down.. his walks are way down. He hasn't given up a run in August! (Well, in 6.2 IP.)

I wonder if he grew back his goatee. That could account for the new effectiveness...

westcoast dude - Thursday, August 18 2005 @ 11:53 PM EDT (#126098) #

Bosox had a 5th inning from hell. A throwing error by Mirabelli, a fielding error by Manny, and the flood gates opened and Angels came pouring out. Kotchman and Rivera have both homered and have a total of 5 RBIs. Wakefield crapped out.

This Day In Baseball: 18 August 2005 | 25 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.