Matt Kemp of LA for the Triple Crown?

[sagegrouse]

Dodger Matt Kemp is making a late-season surge. He now leads in RBIs, 118 to 113. He trails Pujols in HRs, 36 to 37. And he is 3rd in batting average at .326 to Braun (.330) and Reyes (.329).

No NLer has won all three since Ducky Medwick of the Cardinals in 1937. No ALers since Yaz in '67 and Frank Robinson in '66.

sagegrouse

[jimsumner]

Dodger Matt Kemp is making a late-season surge. He now leads in RBIs, 118 to 113. He trails Pujols in HRs, 36 to 37. And he is 3rd in batting average at .326 to Braun (.330) and Reyes (.329).

No NLer has won all three since Ducky Medwick of the Cardinals in 1937. No ALers since Yaz in '67 and Frank Robinson in '66.

sagegrouse

Which leads to the MVP question. Kemp is having a marvelous season for a team that's never really been in contention. So, where does that leave him?

Full disclosure. If I had a vote, I'd be leaning towards Fielder, having a slightly less marvelous season for a division winner.

[DUKIECB]

Which leads to the MVP question. Kemp is having a marvelous season for a team that's never really been in contention. So, where does that leave him?

Full disclosure. If I had a vote, I'd be leaning towards Fielder, having a slightly less marvelous season for a division winner.

I've never understood the argument that the MVP has to play for a team in contention. What makes Fielder's numbers more impressive just because his jersey says Brewers instead of Dodgers? I guess it's all in how you define what the MVP is. I think of the MVP as the best player period. If Kemp's numbers are better I don't think who you play for should enter into the equation. Maybe the Brewers would have had an even better record if Fielder would have had Kemp's numbers? Just sayin.

[Duvall]

Which leads to the MVP question. Kemp is having a marvelous season for a team that's never really been in contention. So, where does that leave him?

Full disclosure. If I had a vote, I'd be leaning towards Fielder, having a slightly less marvelous season for a division winner.

Is that fair, though? Is Fielder a better and more deserving player for sharing a clubhouse with Ryan Braun?

[jimsumner]

Is that fair, though? Is Fielder a better and more deserving player for sharing a clubhouse with Ryan Braun?

For me, the key word is "valuable." That implies a consideration for team success. I believe Most Valuable Player is subtly but clearly different than Most Outstanding Player or Player of the Year.

As the Pirates supposedly told Ralph Kiner, when he demanded a raise, "we finished last with you, we can finish last without you."

Team success is a key variable, as suggested by the history of MVP voting over the years. Sure, we get the occasional Ernie Banks or Andre Dawkins but MVP winners usually come from contenders.


Earlier in the summer, when it looked like Boston was going to run away with the AL East, I thought Adrian Gonzalez was the AL MVP. Now, I would go with Granderson. For me, leading the league in runs scored and runs batted in for a first-place team is more impressive than doing so for a second-place team.

Same accomplishment. Different context.

[tommy]

For me, the key word is "valuable." That implies a consideration for team success. I believe Most Valuable Player is subtly but clearly different than Most Outstanding Player or Player of the Year.

As the Pirates supposedly told Ralph Kiner, when he demanded a raise, "we finished last with you, we can finish last without you."

Team success is a key variable, as suggested by the history of MVP voting over the years. Sure, we get the occasional Ernie Banks or Andre Dawkins but MVP winners usually come from contenders.


Earlier in the summer, when it looked like Boston was going to run away with the AL East, I thought Adrian Gonzalez was the AL MVP. Now, I would go with Granderson. For me, leading the league in runs scored and runs batted in for a first-place team is more impressive than doing so for a second-place team.

Same accomplishment. Different context.

Or, perhaps leading the league in runs scored is easier, and thereby less impressive, when you have a better bunch of bangers hitting behind you. Perhaps leading in RBI's is easier, and thereby less impressive, when you have a better bunch of hitters in front of you that provide you more opportunities to drive in runs.

In any event, the guy who has combined a fabulous set of numbers with (unexpected) team success has been Justin Verlander. If I had a vote, it would be an easy decision to cast it for Verlander.

[jimsumner]

Or, perhaps leading the league in runs scored is easier, and thereby less impressive, when you have a better bunch of bangers hitting behind you. Perhaps leading in RBI's is easier, and thereby less impressive, when you have a better bunch of hitters in front of you that provide you more opportunities to drive in runs.

In any event, the guy who has combined a fabulous set of numbers with (unexpected) team success has been Justin Verlander. If I had a vote, it would be an easy decision to cast it for Verlander.

Sure. But it helps if you can get on base and if you have the ability to move up the bases.

Verlander wins the AL Cy Young award in a runaway. The MVP voting invariably is dominated by everyday players, with a closer occasionally sneaking into the mix.

The NL MVP is interesting. Lee, Halladay and Kershaw. A case could be made for any of the three.

Wouldn't it be weird if the Dodgers got the NL MVP and Cy Young winners, without making any impact on the pennant race?

[sagegrouse]

If he wins the triple crown, he gets my vote. I mean, first NL triple crown since Joe Medwick of the StL Gashouse Gang? If we don;t celebrate this accomplishment, what do we celebrate?

sagegrouse

[sagegrouse]

Kemp was 1-4 with a dinger and has tied Pujols for the HR lead at 37. Kemp leads in RBIs 119 to 113 and trails Braun and Reyes in BA .326 to .329.

sagegrouse

[Olympic Fan]

I have to second Jim's point -- the history of the MVP award suggests that the voters put a lot of credence in team success.

If Kemp wins the Triple Crown and misses on the MVP, he would be in good company.

We all know Ted Williams did it twice (losing the MVP to Joe Gordon in 1942 and to Joe DiMaggio in 1947).

But that's not the worst example -- Lou Gehrig won the triple crown in 1934 and finished FIFTH in the MVP voting. His .363-49-165 (he led in six other offensive categories) was deemed inferior to two other position players and two starting pitchers. His own teammate, Lefty Gomez finished third with a 26-5 2.33 (a VERY good ERA in that live-ball era). Schoolboy Rowe of the Tigers finished fourth at 24-8 3.45 ERA. Charlie Gehringer finished second with numbers that weren't that far off Gehrig's (except in home runs) .356 11 127. But the winner is hard to fathom -- catcher Mickey Cochrane won with .320 2 76. Maybe a great defensive catcher (although clearly not as good as Rick Ferrell and according to the numbers, not as good as Bill Dickey or maybe Rollie Hemsley). I know he was regarded at the time as a great inspirational leader, but he was the player-manager ... shouldn't that quality have won him manager of the year and not MVP?

And it's not like the Yankees finished last. The '34 Yankees finished second to Detroit. And while Gehrig wasn't the inspirational leader that Cochrane evidently was, it's not like he was a bad apple in the clubhouse or a malingerer.

Gehrig's loss in 1934 was a bigger injustice than Kemp's in 2011 would be.

[dukebluelemur]

I have to second Jim's point -- the history of the MVP award suggests that the voters put a lot of credence in team success.

If Kemp wins the Triple Crown and misses on the MVP, he would be in good company.

We all know Ted Williams did it twice (losing the MVP to Joe Gordon in 1942 and to Joe DiMaggio in 1947).

But that's not the worst example -- Lou Gehrig won the triple crown in 1934 and finished FIFTH in the MVP voting. His .363-49-165 (he led in six other offensive categories) was deemed inferior to two other position players and two starting pitchers. His own teammate, Lefty Gomez finished third with a 26-5 2.33 (a VERY good ERA in that live-ball era). Schoolboy Rowe of the Tigers finished fourth at 24-8 3.45 ERA. Charlie Gehringer finished second with numbers that weren't that far off Gehrig's (except in home runs) .356 11 127. But the winner is hard to fathom -- catcher Mickey Cochrane won with .320 2 76. Maybe a great defensive catcher (although clearly not as good as Rick Ferrell and according to the numbers, not as good as Bill Dickey or maybe Rollie Hemsley). I know he was regarded at the time as a great inspirational leader, but he was the player-manager ... shouldn't that quality have won him manager of the year and not MVP?

And it's not like the Yankees finished last. The '34 Yankees finished second to Detroit. And while Gehrig wasn't the inspirational leader that Cochrane evidently was, it's not like he was a bad apple in the clubhouse or a malingerer.

Gehrig's loss in 1934 was a bigger injustice than Kemp's in 2011 would be.

Worth noting Kemp is also second in the NL in SB (To Bourn). That is not exactly a strength of Prince Fielder's game. *wink*

That is one heck of a season he's put together, on a mediocre team, in a pitchers park, in the NL West

[jimsumner]

Worth noting Kemp is also second in the NL in SB (To Bourn). That is not exactly a strength of Prince Fielder's game. *wink*

That is one heck of a season he's put together, on a mediocre team, in a pitchers park, in the NL West

Then again, you sure wouldn't want to get in Fielder's way. He could take out an entire zip code.

I was talking to Al Featherston yesterday before the game and he suggested that Braun may have passed Fielder as the best Brewers rep. So, if they take votes from each other, they might cancel out the Brewers vote, leaving the door open for Kemp.

Speaking of Braun, can the ACC claim him if he wins the MVP? He did play one season in the ACC, IIRC. Makes more sense than honoring some VT player from the 1970s as an ACC Legend.

[Jim3k]

If one is looking for ACC baseballers seeking honors in the majors, you might look to two AL second basemen whose rookie numbers are almost direct copies of one another. The first would be Jemile Weeks of the A's, who played at Miami. The other would be Dustin Ackley of the Mariners who played at UNC.

As I write this, Weeks, who was called up in mid-season, leads all rookies in both leagues in BA with a .306 and triples with 8. He also has 22 SBs. His OPS is .767

Ackley, also up since mid-season, is hitting .280 with a .781 OPS, w/ 7 triples. He has only 6 errors compared to Weeks' 13.

Weeks is better, but Ackley is close behind, so the ACC is showing up well with rookies, even though both are playing for non-contenders.

Given Weeks' offensive numbers, he should actually be a legit candidate for ROY in the AL.

[jimsumner]

If one is looking for ACC baseballers seeking honors in the majors, you might look to two AL second basemen whose rookie numbers are almost direct copies of one another. The first would be Jemile Weeks of the A's, who played at Miami. The other would be Dustin Ackley of the Mariners who played at UNC.

As I write this, Weeks, who was called up in mid-season, leads all rookies in both leagues in BA with a .306 and triples with 8. He also has 22 SBs. His OPS is .767

Ackley, also up since mid-season, is hitting .280 with a .781 OPS, w/ 7 triples. He has only 6 errors compared to Weeks' 13.

Weeks is better, but Ackley is close behind, so the ACC is showing up well with rookies, even though both are playing for non-contenders.

Given Weeks' offensive numbers, he should actually be a legit candidate for ROY in the AL.

Agree on Weeks and Ackley. Again, we get into the whole everyday player v. pitcher argument. But former Durham Bull Jeremy Hellickson has to be in the AL ROY mix. As does Kimbrel in the NL.

[Jim3k]

Agree on Weeks and Ackley. Again, we get into the whole everyday player v. pitcher argument. But former Durham Bull Jeremy Hellickson has to be in the AL ROY mix. As does Kimbrel in the NL.

There are several rookie pitchers who can be considered if you can get past the pitcher/position player divide: Yanks' Nova and Mets' Gee, at least based on W-L record. Hellickson's ERA puts him in the running while both the Angels' Walden and the aforementioned Kimbrel of the Braves must be considered for their saves.

Although not in the statistical running at 8-10, I have been very impressed with Guillermo Moscoso. He's somebody to watch. As a rookie, he's thrown several near no-hitters and has gotten better as the season progressed.

I do find myself in the camp favoring the position players argument over the pitchers, who should be given a separate category.

[jimsumner]

There are several rookie pitchers who can be considered if you can get past the pitcher/position player divide: Yanks' Nova and Mets' Gee, at least based on W-L record. Hellickson's ERA puts him in the running while both the Angels' Walden and the aforementioned Kimbrel of the Braves must be considered for their saves.

Although not in the statistical running at 8-10, I have been very impressed with Guillermo Moscoso. He's somebody to watch. As a rookie, he's thrown several near no-hitters and has gotten better as the season progressed.

I do find myself in the camp favoring the position players argument over the pitchers, who should be given a separate category.

I wouldn't be opposed to having a ROY for position players and another one for pitchers. Breaks with tradition but so did the establishment of the Cy Young award.

[Jim3k]

Walden just blew a save against the A's and took the loss. He had the opportunity to start a game-ending double play, but made a bad throw to second and the roof began to cave in. A's scored 4 runs in the top of the 9th to come from behind to win. Angels intentionally walked Weeks to get to Suzuki. Shows their respect for Weeks, but it was a mistake as Suzuki hit a GW double.

[sagegrouse]

Kemp went 1/5 today with an RBI, but trails Braun .324 to .333 in batting average. Heck of a season, though -- 37 dingers, 120 RBIs and above .320 BA.

sagegrouse

[theAlaskanBear]

Kemp went 1/5 today with an RBI, but trails Braun .324 to .333 in batting average. Heck of a season, though -- 37 dingers, 120 RBIs and above .320 BA.

sagegrouse

I call that an Albert season ;P

Matt Kemp is having an Albert season and should be considered for the NL MVP.

[tommy]

For me, the key word is "valuable." That implies a consideration for team success. I believe Most Valuable Player is subtly but clearly different than Most Outstanding Player or Player of the Year.

I think of MVP this way: if you were drafting a team to win next season, and you knew for a fact that every player's performance next season would be an exact replica of his performance this year, and you had the first pick in the draft, who would you pick? That says "most valuable" to me, regardless of position. The award is named "most valuable player" not "most valuable position player." I think if you had first pick in the draft of all players based on their 2011 performance only, you'd almost have to pick Verlander. To me, that's why he's the MVP.

[sagegrouse]

Still trailing in BA by .324 to .334, but now ahead in HRs 38 to 37 and well ahead in RBIs.

sagegrouse

[Jim3k]

Still trailing in BA by .324 to .334, but now ahead in HRs 38 to 37 and well ahead in RBIs.

sagegrouse

though it has no impact on the top 3, prince fielder hit 3 homers tonight; he's now at 37 w/ 115 rbi. still 8 rbi behind kemp.

exciting wind-down to the season. wildcards in both leagues tied as of tues. night, not to mention the individual player stat races.

[throatybeard]

I think of MVP this way: if you were drafting a team to win next season, and you knew for a fact that every player's performance next season would be an exact replica of his performance this year, and you had the first pick in the draft, who would you pick? That says "most valuable" to me, regardless of position. The award is named "most valuable player" not "most valuable position player." I think if you had first pick in the draft of all players based on their 2011 performance only, you'd almost have to pick Verlander. To me, that's why he's the MVP.

I like this formulation. It cuts the political BS about pitchers v position guys out. This is a great way of looking at performance. It's about marginal value.

Think about a FFB draft. The first few guys are always RBs. Why, when several QBs will outscore those guys? Because the marginal difference between them and the next RBs is expected to be greater than the difference between, say Rodgers and Rivers.

Great pitchers are rare. Rarer perhaps than Adrian Peterson, when looking at marginal value.

[Mal]

I like that line of thinking, as well. "Value" being thought of in a relative sense instead of just a gross numbers sense.

I've always been firmly in the camp that believes pitchers shouldn't even be in the running for MVP, based on the only playing every fifth day thing, and the fact they've got the Cy Young Award. But I saw a note somewhere (WSJ?) recently that made me completely rethink that. Baseball is all about the one-on-one battles between a pitcher and a hitter, and who wins more of them. As such, maybe we should think less about the number of games in which a player appears, and more about how many plate appearances they're a part of. And the winner there is clearly a strong starting pitcher. Verlander will throw, what, 250 innings? If he has a WHIP of 1.00, that's 1,000 individual plate appearances over the course of the season, far in excess of any hitter. If he's more successful in preventing runs over those plate appearances than the top hitter is in producing them (not sure how to compare those apples and oranges) in fewer trips to the plate, there's an argument that the pitcher's "value" is greater than the hitter's.

On a separate note, the fact that tradition has meant that MVP voters lean toward players on contenders doesn't mean it's the right way to do it. If we stipulate that every win for a playoff contending team is more "valuable" than a win for another team, then yes, I could see going this way. But I don't think of wins as necessarily having more value for one team than another simply based on whether or not they're destined to be in a pennant race later in the year. Pretty much all aspects of what comprises "value" to me devolves into a measure of pure effectiveness on the field and actual quality of play. I know that traditionally the sportswriters conception of "most valuable" has meant "best player on the best team with certain exceptions, like best player on close to the best team if they're significantly superior to anyone on the best team, or best player on a crummy team if they've just had a blow-the-doors-off season." I'd rather it just be synonymous with "most outstanding."

[rasputin]

I like this formulation. It cuts the political BS about pitchers v position guys out. This is a great way of looking at performance. It's about marginal value.

Think about a FFB draft. The first few guys are always RBs. Why, when several QBs will outscore those guys? Because the marginal difference between them and the next RBs is expected to be greater than the difference between, say Rodgers and Rivers.

Great pitchers are rare. Rarer perhaps than Adrian Peterson, when looking at marginal value.

Agreed that there should be separate awards.

The first few guys in FFB being RB's is also because of scarcity: most Fantasy leagues have you start one QB, but two RB's, so there are more QB's to go around.

[throatybeard]

I've always been firmly in the camp that believes pitchers shouldn't even be in the running for MVP, based on the only playing every fifth day thing, and the fact they've got the Cy Young Award. But I saw a note somewhere (WSJ?) recently that made me completely rethink that. Baseball is all about the one-on-one battles between a pitcher and a hitter, and who wins more of them. As such, maybe we should think less about the number of games in which a player appears, and more about how many plate appearances they're a part of. And the winner there is clearly a strong starting pitcher. Verlander will throw, what, 250 innings? If he has a WHIP of 1.00, that's 1,000 individual plate appearances over the course of the season, far in excess of any hitter. If he's more successful in preventing runs over those plate appearances than the top hitter is in producing them (not sure how to compare those apples and oranges) in fewer trips to the plate, there's an argument that the pitcher's "value" is greater than the hitter's.

Dag, that's some smart word-sayin, there, Mal. I love the PAs argument.