Post Your Top 3 AL/NL MVP/CYA - End of August

[ericd7633]

Harper running away with this thing.

 

[ericd7633]

Its a round about argument man. You say game winning RBI and game winning hits arent as important because they only happen after your team wins, id argue your team wins because you got those hits. Harper is great as is Goldy but you cant be the Most Valuable anything when your team goes 81-81. Thats just my opinion. Its be one thing if Harper or Goldy were having historic type years. Theya rent, theyre just having really good years but so are a few other guys who play for winning teams and many of those teams are winning teams because of what those guys are doing situationally.

Care to change the response on that? Since 1950 Harper is having, statistically, one of the top 15 seasons in the time frame. When you take out the guys who were on roids it's in the top 10. So basically, in the last 65 years, taking out the guys who took roids, Harper sits within the top 10. Harper is having the best non steroid aided season of the 21st century.

 

[rmilia1]

I don't see Harper's year this year being any better than Piazza had in 97. And Piazza didn't win MVP and his team was substantially better than Harper's this year. Like I said he is great but it's just not historical imo. You can disagree but in 10 years people won't remember this season by harper. Just the truth

 

[navamind]

It's funny how you bring up 1997 considering Larry Walker played on the 83-79 Rockies, and you keep trying to bring team accomplishments up.

Walker's '97 MVP was pretty deserved. I'm not entirely sure Piazza was more valuable than Biggio, and Bonds had himself a fine year. Whereas Harper's clearly been a much better player than Votto/Rizzo/Goldschmidt/etc.

 

[ericd7633]

I don't see Harper's year this year being any better than Piazza had in 97. And Piazza didn't win MVP and his team was substantially better than Harper's this year. Like I said he is great but it's just not historical imo. You can disagree but in 10 years people won't remember this season by harper. Just the truth

What would you consider historical? Harper is having a top 50 all-time season according to the statistics. He's having a top 40 season since 1900.

And to compare:

Harper's 2015: .338/.467/.667/1.134, 204 OPS+, 9.6 WAR, 8.4 oWAR, 39 HR's.
Piazza's 1997: .362/.431/.638/1.070, 185 OPS+, 8.7 WAR, 8.9 oWAR, 40 HR's.

Harper's numbers are most definitely better than Piazza's were in 1997. By the end of the year, at this pace, he'll pass Piazza in oWAR and HR's.

Also, bringing up 1997 was stupid, considering Piazza DIDN'T win the MVP, despite the Dodgers having a better record than the Rockies. Colorado finished 4 games above .500 that year. If the Nats play .500 from here on out the'll have an identical record to what Colorado had that season.

 

[rmilia1]

What would you consider historical? Harper is having a top 50 all-time season according to the statistics. He's having a top 40 season since 1900.

And to compare:

Harper's 2015: .338/.467/.667/1.134, 204 OPS+, 9.6 WAR, 8.4 oWAR, 39 HR's.
Piazza's 1997: .362/.431/.638/1.070, 185 OPS+, 8.7 WAR, 8.9 oWAR, 40 HR's.

Harper's numbers are most definitely better than Piazza's were in 1997. By the end of the year, at this pace, he'll pass Piazza in oWAR and HR's.

Also, bringing up 1997 was stupid, considering Piazza DIDN'T win the MVP, despite the Dodgers having a better record than the Rockies. Colorado finished 4 games above .500 that year. If the Nats play .500 from here on out the'll have an identical record to what Colorado had that season.

Yes! Mow that's a real question. What do you consider historical?? Historical means,that it's remembered. It's something the average guy would know right away. It's Maris 61. It's Sosa McGwire in 98. It's Bonds 73. It's Ruth, Koufax and Pedro. Those are historical and that's what it takes to be MVP on an average team. Not a year no one will recall 10 years from now. It's a great year. Just not a historical one. And in lieu of that you can't be MVP on a blah type team

 

[navamind]

'61 Maris was one of the best home run seasons of all-time, but it wasn't a historically great season. There's no way he should have won MVP over Mantle or Cash.

 

[ericd7633]

Yes! Mow that's a real question. What do you consider historical?? Historical means,that it's remembered. It's something the average guy would know right away. It's Maris 61. It's Sosa McGwire in 98. It's Bonds 73. It's Ruth, Koufax and Pedro. Those are historical and that's what it takes to be MVP on an average team. Not a year no one will recall 10 years from now. It's a great year. Just not a historical one. And in lieu of that you can't be MVP on a blah type team

So basically it has to be a season where a guy hits a lot of HR's? That's pretty absurd if you ask me. And half those seasons you just mentioned were aided by steroids. Also, just to put a little context into things, 13 players hit more than 40 HR's in 1998, with, give or take 16-18 games left in the year only 2 players have hit more than 40 HR's. In 1998 there were over 5,000 HR's hit, this year just a little over 4,300, I think you get where I'm going with this.

Also, it should be noted, you immediately brought up Sosa's 98 season, did you know that Harper beats that season with avg, OBP, SLG%, OPS+, WAR and oWAR.

As for the bold, you just proved yourself to be wrong about that because you yourself brought up 1997.

 

[ericd7633]

Yes! Mow that's a real question. What do you consider historical?? Historical means,that it's remembered. It's something the average guy would know right away. It's Maris 61. It's Sosa McGwire in 98. It's Bonds 73. It's Ruth, Koufax and Pedro. Those are historical and that's what it takes to be MVP on an average team. Not a year no one will recall 10 years from now. It's a great year. Just not a historical one. And in lieu of that you can't be MVP on a blah type team

Look up Mickey Mantle's 1957 season. It was historically great, despite hitting "only" 34 HR's.

 

[rmilia1]

Eric it's cool man. We disagree. I think MVP is meant for most valuable player and you think it's for the best player. It's not a big deal.

 

[Villain]

Eric it's cool man. We disagree. I think MVP is meant for most valuable player and you think it's for the best player. It's not a big deal.

 

[ericd7633]

Eric it's cool man. We disagree. I think MVP is meant for most valuable player and you think it's for the best player. It's not a big deal.

I don't really care about that, that's opinion, but when you contradict yourself by bringing up 1997 I have to call you out. That was probably the worst season to bring up actually.

And I agree with you in the sense that if it's close between two players, the player on the better team should win the award. But you can't honestly look at what each player has done this season and think it's close, can you? The difference in OPS+ between Harper and Rizzo is equal to the difference between Rizzo and Addison Russell.

 

[rmilia1]

I don't really care about that, that's opinion, but when you contradict yourself by bringing up 1997 I have to call you out. That was probably the worst season to bring up actually.

And I agree with you in the sense that if it's close between two players, the player on the better team should win the award. But you can't honestly look at what each player has done this season and think it's close, can you? The difference in OPS+ between Harper and Rizzo is equal to the difference between Rizzo and Addison Russell.

I didn't contradict myself. I pointed out Piazza was very similar to Harper that year and he didn't win. And his team was better. I didn't say anything about walker winning because imo that was bullshit. The point was Harper's year doesn't guarantee him to win because it's not all that special. Not memorable even a little bit. If your season isn't historical then you shouldn't win on a bad team

 

[Villain]

The point was Harper's year doesn't guarantee him to win because it's not all that special. Not memorable even a little bit.

I... uh... hmm...

Start reading here (post 11) and follow the exchange between @SlinkyRedfoot and me (here).

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Eric it's cool man. We disagree. I think MVP is meant for most valuable player and you think it's for the best player. It's not a big deal.

I don't really give a shit about the MVP debate. That'll sort itself out here in a month or so.

The bigger issue is that you don't think Harper's season is special in a historical context.

Serious question. Have you ever been tested for autism?

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Harper is having the best non steroid aided season of the 21st century.

Conjecture.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Yes! Mow that's a real question. What do you consider historical?? Historical means,that it's remembered. It's something the average guy would know right away. It's Maris 61. It's Sosa McGwire in 98. It's Bonds 73. It's Ruth, Koufax and Pedro. Those are historical and that's what it takes to be MVP on an average team. Not a year no one will recall 10 years from now. It's a great year. Just not a historical one. And in lieu of that you can't be MVP on a blah type team

If you ask the "average" guy about Honus Wagner's 1908 season odds are pretty good he won't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Eric it's cool man. We disagree. I think MVP is meant for most valuable player and you think it's for the best player. It's not a big deal.

I don't think that this is it at all. I think that you both understand that it's meant for the most valuable player. You simply don't both define value the same way.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I didn't contradict myself. I pointed out Piazza was very similar to Harper that year and he didn't win. And his team was better. I didn't say anything about walker winning because imo that was bullshit. The point was Harper's year doesn't guarantee him to win because it's not all that special. Not memorable even a little bit. If your season isn't historical then you shouldn't win on a bad team

Harper is currently leading the league in WAR, BA, OBP, OPS, OPS+, R, HR and Runs created. In 1997 Piazza only led in OPS+. You can give him SLG and OPS too if we take out the Colorado effect, but that context is the difference here.

 

[rmilia1]

I don't really give a shit about the MVP debate. That'll sort itself out here in a month or so.

The bigger issue is that you don't think Harper's season is special in a historical context.

Serious question. Have you ever been tested for autism?

Historical equates to important and memorable. This season by harper is neither. It's absurd to say otherwise. It's merely a very good year that Stat nerds think is great. The truth is 5 years from now no one will remember anything harper did this year because it wasn't important or valuable in ANY way