[besson3c]

For me as a Blue Jay fan the story has been Jose Bautista. It is kind of cool that shortly after losing the face of the franchise in the best pitcher in baseball (Halladay) we now have the best hitter in baseball over nearly the last two years. I think that Pujols is still the best hitter overall due to the longevity of his eliteness, but Bautista has been a huge story answering critics who thought that last year, the largest seasonal home run increase from the prior year in history, was some sort of fluke.

Adrian Gonzalez could be the AL runner up in best hitting, and it has been interesting seeing his seamless transition to the AL, but Bautista having the lead in HRs, OBP, OPS, WAR, BB, and on the leaderboard in AVG at around .330, runs, and RBI despite missing 10 days seems like a no-brainer call for me.

The performances of Verlander, Pineda, Reyes, Fielder, Granderson, Hamels, Hafner, the Indians, Beckett, and others have also been fun to watch. The Phillies rotation is just f-ing insane, the Pirates have been surprisingly good, the Nationals manager quitting was weird, and the continued awesomeness of Rivera is also pretty cool.

Any personal highlights for you?

[besson3c]

Forgot to add Jurrjens to that list of complete/semi-surprises...

[Dork.]

Is the pitching really that good, or is this just hitters adjusting to life without steroids?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Is the pitching really that good, or is this just hitters adjusting to life without steroids?

That's a good question, this has been another year of the pitcher so far...

[besson3c]

It will be interesting to see how Bautista fares tomorrow at the home run derby thing...

[abbaZaba]

Words can't describe how good it feels that the pirates are 4 games above .500 and 1 game out of first in the division. I went to the 9-1 shellacking they gave the Cubs today and it just feels awesome to have a full stadium and people excited about the team. This is the first time in my lifetime they've done this well this late. I've seen 2 super bowl victories and a Stanley cup but it is a different sort of feeling to see them on the up and up

[besson3c]

If you guys want to talk about division realignment and playoff expansion stuff like that too, I'd be happy to. It sounds like some of this might be in the works for next year...

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Bautista has been a huge story answering critics who thought that last year, the largest seasonal home run increase from the prior year in history, was some sort of fluke.

One season or two, it's still really f*cking weird.

Originally Posted by besson3c

and the continued awesomeness of Rivera is also pretty cool.

It was even cooler when he blew the save against the Mets.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you guys want to talk about division realignment and playoff expansion stuff like that too, I'd be happy to. It sounds like some of this might be in the works for next year...

Haven't kept up with that stuff. All I have to say is that if Bug Selig likes it, I'll probably hate it.

[SpaceMonkey]

On the fake baseball front, I bought Out of the Park Baseball 12 a couple of weeks ago and it's been sucking up a ridiculous amount of my time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

One season or two, it's still really f*cking weird.



It was even cooler when he blew the save against the Mets.

It is really weird, and he is pretty skinny with a moderate build - doesn't look like your 90s era prototypical home run hitter at all...

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you guys want to talk about division realignment and playoff expansion stuff like that too, I'd be happy to. It sounds like some of this might be in the works for next year...

I'd rather they not expand the playoffs. They go on too long as it is.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

I'd rather they not expand the playoffs. They go on too long as it is.

About the only thing I like about this is that it is a bandaid helper for the unbalanced division problem.

[SpaceMonkey]

If they add another wild card team I want them to reduce the ALCS and NLCS to 5 game series.

The only realignment ideas that interest me are the most extreme (like nuking the AL and NL entirely) which means they will never happen. I don't like the 15 team-15 team no divisions idea floated recently because interleague play throughout the season seems too problematic.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If they add another wild card team I want them to reduce the ALCS and NLCS to 5 game series.

I don't think they have to do much more than reduce spring training a little, which is already longer than it needs to be.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't think they have to do much more than reduce spring training a little, which is already longer than it needs to be.

My reasoning is not really about the worry of snow delays in November, although that is a concern. Mostly I agree with Thorzdad that the playoffs will be a bit long and, if the goal of MLB here is to generate fan interest, 5 game championship series could also result in a slightly better chance of a wild card team making it to the World Series. Ever since baseball added wild card teams and interleague play I've found the championship series to be a bit anachronistic, really, and I think that de-emphasizing them in the playoff structure in this way would be more consistent.

[Thorzdad]

I'd like to see the NL/ALCS series' get knocked back to 5 games, regardless.
I'd be happy if interleague play went away, myself.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My reasoning is not really about the worry of snow delays in November, although that is a concern. Mostly I agree with Thorzdad that the playoffs will be a bit long and, if the goal of MLB here is to generate fan interest, 5 game championship series could also result in a slightly better chance of a wild card team making it to the World Series. Ever since baseball added wild card teams and interleague play I've found the championship series to be a bit anachronistic, really, and I think that de-emphasizing them in the playoff structure in this way would be more consistent.

I don't have a strong opinion about the playoff structure, but since you mentioned interleague play, I think that there wouldn't be much of a need for interleague if the whole concept of divisions and playing within your own division more frequently was de-emphasized or eliminated altogether.

Some people say that interleague is unfair for AL teams. I think the whole "National league management requires more strategy" thing is a little overblown, since pitchers no longer taking hitting all that seriously, making yanking the pitcher for a pinch hitter pretty formulaic and usually not involving any real outside-the-box thinking. What concerns me is pitchers who aren't used to hitting injuring themselves, although maybe it is wrong of me to think of them as delicate flowers.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't have a strong opinion about the playoff structure, but since you mentioned interleague play, I think that there wouldn't be much of a need for interleague if the whole concept of divisions and playing within your own division more frequently was de-emphasized or eliminated altogether.

Some people say that interleague is unfair for AL teams. I think the whole "National league management requires more strategy" thing is a little overblown, since pitchers no longer taking hitting all that seriously, making yanking the pitcher for a pinch hitter pretty formulaic and usually not involving any real outside-the-box thinking. What concerns me is pitchers who aren't used to hitting injuring themselves, although maybe it is wrong of me to think of them as delicate flowers.

I like occasional interleague play. The question of whether it benefits NL teams or AL teams really depends on the teams playing since it's a relatively small number of games in the current format. It's hard to argue that the Yankees are disadvantaged by playing the Mets, regardless of whose rules they are using.

I don't understand the connection you're making between the existence of divisions and the need for interleague play.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I like occasional interleague play. The question of whether it benefits NL teams or AL teams really depends on the teams playing since it's a relatively small number of games in the current format. It's hard to argue that the Yankees are disadvantaged by playing the Mets, regardless of whose rules they are using.

I don't understand the connection you're making between the existence of divisions and the need for interleague play.

Well, there isn't a strong one, but I think one of the arguments for interleague play is that it gives fans a chance to see teams they don't see regularly. However, teams see teams in their own league in other divisions once at home and the road the same way, making the Yankees playing the Oakland As about as unique as the Yankees playing the Diamondbacks.

[besson3c]

Also, does the amount of interleague play we have now qualify as "occasional" SpaceMonkey, or is it overkill?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, there isn't a strong one, but I think one of the arguments for interleague play is that it gives fans a chance to see teams they don't see regularly. However, teams see teams in their own league in other divisions once at home and the road the same way, making the Yankees playing the Oakland As about as unique as the Yankees playing the Diamondbacks.

Also, does the amount of interleague play we have now qualify as "occasional" SpaceMonkey, or is it overkill?

My feelings in favor of it are mostly that you specifically get the geographic "rivalry" games (Mets-Yankees, Cubs-White Sox, Giants-A's, etc.). This leaves some teams playing random interleague match-ups, though. I wouldn't might seeing interleague play scaled back to 8 games maximum per team (2 series against the same opponent, one in each teams' ballpark), as opposed to the current 18 (which out of 162 games is still occasional, strictly speaking, but slightly overkill).

I don't think the rareness argument makes much difference whether you have divisions or not. If teams had a balanced schedule across their league, then interleague play would be the only chance to see "teams they don't see regularly."

[besson3c]

Scaled back interleague I'm cool with, particularly along with a balanced schedule.


I don't really understand the argument for an unbalanced schedule, it has never been made clear to me. It would seem to me that if you go with a balanced schedule you immediately get rid of the whole "poor Baltimore stuck in the AL East" thing...

[SpaceMonkey]

A balanced schedule is somewhat of a mixed bag competitively because it could easily result in the Yankees and Red Sox running away with the top 2 spots in the AL every year, with little to play for in the final stretch.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

A balanced schedule is somewhat of a mixed bag competitively because it could easily result in the Yankees and Red Sox running away with the top 2 spots in the AL every year, with little to play for in the final stretch.

It also means that the other teams don't have to play the Yankees and Red Sox as often, so doesn't this balance out?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It also means that the other teams don't have to play the Yankees and Red Sox as often, so doesn't this balance out?

Only the Orioles, Rays, and Jays would get to play them less often, so I'm not sure that it does. I'm also not sure if the effect of having the Yankees and Red Sox play the rest of the AL (outside of the East) more often is a net positive or negative for them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Only the Orioles, Rays, and Jays would get to play them less often, so I'm not sure that it does. I'm also not sure if the effect of having the Yankees and Red Sox play the rest of the AL (outside of the East) more often is a net positive or negative for them.

The Orioles, Rays, and Jays would play them less often, just as the Nationals would play the Braves and Phillies less frequently, etc. A balanced schedule is future proof against any new baseball franchise dynasty, since it puts everybody on exactly the same level playing field (pardon the pun). If you want to reduce travel costs you can schedule trips so that teams don't have to travel randomly from coast to coast, just make the number of games that the teams play each other as equal and random as possible.

The Yankees and Red Sox playing other teams more frequently would help them as you pointed out, but I think the two factors would balance out at the end.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The Orioles, Rays, and Jays would play them less often, just as the Nationals would play the Braves and Phillies less frequently, etc. A balanced schedule is future proof against any new baseball franchise dynasty, since it puts everybody on exactly the same level playing field (pardon the pun).

I guess I'm operating on the assumptions that payroll generally matters, and that payroll disparities are persistent and independent of divisional or balanced structure. So if you are interested in competitive balance, it doesn't really matter whether the also-rans like the Orioles are battling for the 4 or 5 spot in a balanced, division-less league or the 2 wild card spots in an unbalanced, divisional league.

[SpaceMonkey]

On the list of somewhat surprising players, it's nice seeing Matt Kemp have a bounceback season despite playing for a terrible organization. Also, Paul Konerko is amazing.

[brassplayersrock²]

I wish that Rickey Henderson would post in this thread!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I guess I'm operating on the assumptions that payroll generally matters, and that payroll disparities are persistent and independent of divisional or balanced structure. So if you are interested in competitive balance, it doesn't really matter whether the also-rans like the Orioles are battling for the 4 or 5 spot in a balanced, division-less league or the 2 wild card spots in an unbalanced, divisional league.

Payroll does matter, but it's one factor here. A team that would have had to play against the Rays in the last few years more than other teams would have a harder time than most other random teams.

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

I wish that Rickey Henderson would post in this thread!

Shhhhhh.

[besson3c]

Two wild card ties now!

Go Rays! I'm a little ambivalent about the Cardinals and Braves. I like the players on both teams, but I'm kind of starting to form a negative opinion about Tona LaRussa.

The Red Sox can suck my balls.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Jays also had a decent season, considering. Developed some very promising young talent and by all accounts have possibly the best farm system in the league. Their GM is pretty clear in saying he's not going to bid on big-name FAs until he thinks they're already ready and just need that final piece. Next year we should see how some of the young guys can handle a full season. I think in 2-3 years, they could have a Rays type of coming out party.

[sdilley14]

Ryan Braun wins the batting title and MVP and the Brewers win the series in 6 over the Yanks...just sayin.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I honestly think that Bautista should get the MVP, even despite his recent (unusual) late-season slump.

Take a look at the Jays' batting order. Bautista's a very good defensive player, but goes to the plate every game and either gets pitched around, or pitched to with no RBI opportunity. Tough spot. Stick him on the Yanks instead of Granderson and I believe he would be considered the best player in baseball, hands down.

The Jays have spent the past decade watching MVP-quality play (first Halliday, now Bautista) get overlooked because of team mediocrity. Hopefully we can finally build something around Bautista over the next couple of years.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I honestly think that Bautista should get the MVP, even despite his recent (unusual) late-season slump.

What slump?

I'd say that his pace just slowed, but it's hard to say a guy with an OPS over .900 in the second half is in any kind of slump.

The people that are against him being MVP are old school halfwits who think the MVP should be about the performance of teammates, and whom come up with nebulous arguments about the notion of "value". The best player is the most valuable and will impact the team the most in their absence, period. That's the way I see it.

Bautista leads in all the important areas: OBP, WAR, slugging percentage, HRs, OPS. On a team like the Yankees or Red Sox he'd probably be leading in overall runs too on account of being on base so often, and he'd have far more RBIs too, but it ain't his fault he's not on these teams.

Stats like batting average, RBIs, runs tell you something, but they are fairly meaningless in a conversation about the MVP, I think.

The Jays have spent the past decade watching MVP-quality play (first Halliday, now Bautista) get overlooked because of team mediocrity. Hopefully we can finally build something around Bautista over the next couple of years.

Agreed! The Jays are truly on the up and up, and adding another wild card spot will definitely help a great deal. I'm not holding my breath for contention next year, but it is possible, wild card spot or no. If everything clicks for Romero, Morrow, Alverez, McGowan, Drabeck, Cecil the rotation could be solid with players like Molina and Hutchinson waiting in the wings (as well as Jessie Litsch, who could also be a decent fifth starter), and an offensive consisting of Lawrie, Bautista, Escobar, and EE might be adequate enough for the team to do things. If Snider realizes his potential as a .900+ OPS middle of the order bat and is added to this mix, and if Lind can improve to something in between his last two seasons and his 2009 season, Rasmus get back to where he was, that offense could be quite potent!

As always with the Jays though there is a lot of "ifs". It never works out perfectly, but the team is headed in the direction where they have more wiggle room in case these sorts of things don't work out.

[sdilley14]

I like Bautista (he got me a lot of fantasy points this year along with Verlander ), but he's 10th in the AL in batting average, 10th in RBI, he's first in HR with 6 guys in the majors only 6 or less behind him, and his team is nowhere close to making the playoffs. It's hard to make a case for an MVP when voters look at these major batting categories as use the fact that a team is winning or losing as sort of a compensating factor. Having said that, I don't know that there is a clear cut MVP in the AL. Personally, I think this is the year a pitcher should win an MVP. Verlander has 24 wins, leads the AL in ERA, leads the entire league in innings pitched and strike outs, and his team is in the playoffs. He has been nothing short of absolutely dominating this year.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You just named all the stats that besson pointed out as "fairly meaningless". Not that I agree with Besson a whole lot, but he's right in this case.

Saying "he's 10th in RBI" is a useless fact without context. He's 10th in RBI, when he rarely gets a chance to drive runs in because the rest of his team is quite poor at getting on base ahead of him. His current batting average reflects this IMO - anyone who watches Jays games will know that opposing teams often do not have to give him the respect he might get on a better roster. And he's over 130 walks on the season now, right...?

If you use batting average, RBIs, HRs and team's win/loss record as your factors for MVP voting, then I'm sorry - you're sadly behind the times, and you have a poor understanding of the game. And that's not just "in my opinion".

OBP, WAR, slugging percentage, OPS, HRs - those are better. They provide context. You should be using them instead.

Having said that, it's tough for a pitcher to win MVP - but I'd probably vote for Verlander as well.

greg

[besson3c]

Do you guys think that pitchers should be included in MVP consideration? I would say your best pitcher is always going to be more valuable than your best position player, so this award should be reserved for position players.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by sdilley14 

I like Bautista (he got me a lot of fantasy points this year along with Verlander ), but he's 10th in the AL in batting average, 10th in RBI

Both pretty irrelevant stats when talking MVP. OBP > batting average, RBIs are teammate-dependent. OPS > batting average because extra bases > base hits.

he's first in HR with 6 guys in the majors only 6 or less behind him, and his team is nowhere close to making the playoffs.

Making the playoffs is also pretty irrelevant, IMHO.

It's hard to make a case for an MVP when voters look at these major batting categories as use the fact that a team is winning or losing as sort of a compensating factor. Having said that, I don't know that there is a clear cut MVP in the AL. Personally, I think this is the year a pitcher should win an MVP. Verlander has 24 wins, leads the AL in ERA, leads the entire league in innings pitched and strike outs, and his team is in the playoffs. He has been nothing short of absolutely dominating this year.

If pitchers are eligible, I'd agree with that, I just don't think they should be.

I agree that MVP voters probably won't pick Bautista, but they should let go of these old ridiculous criteria such as this sort of subjective and undefinable idea of "value" and that the MVP has to be from a playoff team.

Just go with the best all-round player and call it a day, which in this case would be Bautista if you are talking only position players.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yup I'd agree with your definition as well - not to mention that as important as a pitcher may be, he's only there one game in 5. Problem is the term "MVP" I think - limited such a term to position players only seems wrong somehow, in that exceptional circumstance when your best pitcher is so dominant that they can be considered an MVP. I think Verlander just had one of those seasons.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yup I'd agree with your definition as well - not to mention that as important as a pitcher may be, he's only there one game in 5. Problem is the term "MVP" I think - limited such a term to position players only seems wrong somehow, in that exceptional circumstance when your best pitcher is so dominant that they can be considered an MVP. I think Verlander just had one of those seasons.

I agree, but my point is that your best pitchers are always going to be more valuable than your best pitchers, because they'll record more outs and innings pitched than hitters record hits.

It's kind of hard to compare position players to pitchers, and since hitters can't win Cy Young awards...

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Like I said, I agree. The problem is the term "most valuable player". If Verlander is the "most valuable player", then isn't it unfair to give an award with that name to someone else on his team?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree, but my point is that your best pitchers are always going to be more valuable than your best pitchers, because they'll record more outs and innings pitched than hitters record hits.

It's kind of hard to compare position players to pitchers, and since hitters can't win Cy Young awards...

Right, but position players have their own Silver Slugger award, too.

Ideally (in my universe!), the best overall hitter at each position would win the Silver Slugger, the best overall pitcher would win the Cy Young (I would not be opposed to expanding it and awarding one for the best starter and one for the best reliever), the best overall fielder at each position would win the Gold Glove, and the MVP could still be influenced by the "old ridiculous criteria such as this sort of subjective and undefinable idea of "value." It is, after all, the Most Valuable Player.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

OBP, WAR, slugging percentage, OPS, HRs - those are better. They provide context. You should be using them instead.

Yup! It annoys me when sports people lump these stats in the same category as really advanced sabermetric stats such as UZR and BABIP and stuff and just generalize about the value of sabermetric stats. Yes, there are some sabermetric stats that need really be handled with care and understanding, but I would say that OPS and WAR are pretty pedestrian stats that should be part of all normal conversations.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Like I said, I agree. The problem is the term "most valuable player". If Verlander is the "most valuable player", then isn't it unfair to give an award with that name to someone else on his team?

If it up to me we would stop all of the often ridiculous debate that surrounds the whole "valuable player" premise, and just make the award about the "best position player". The whole concept of "value" is really problematic, including what you've said here...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Right, but position players have their own Silver Slugger award, too.

For each position, but no award that takes all positions into account.

Ideally (in my universe!), the best overall hitter at each position would win the Silver Slugger, the best overall pitcher would win the Cy Young (I would not be opposed to expanding it and awarding one for the best starter and one for the best reliever), the best overall fielder at each position would win the Gold Glove, and the MVP could still be influenced by the "old ridiculous criteria such as this sort of subjective and undefinable idea of "value." It is, after all, the Most Valuable Player.

In my universe:

- Silver Slugger for each position in each league

- Best overall position player

- Best starter in each league

- Best reliever in each league

- Gold Glove for each position in each league, but a revamped take on this whole award. This award seems to necessitate that the winner can hit, which is completely irrelevant IMO. I'm sorry, I like Derek Jeter and stuff, but he has not been the best defensive SS each year he has won the award. We don't have a great stat to determine defensive value other than UZR, but I think many analysts would agree that as he has aged there have been better defensive players. The award would require a minimum number of innings, of course (otherwise a player like John McDonald would be eligible)

[SpaceMonkey]

I just don't see why the MVP needs to be seen as the position player equivalent to the Cy Young. That's the Silver Slugger. It just so happens that there are 8 positions other than pitcher.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I just don't see why the MVP needs to be seen as the position player equivalent to the Cy Young. That's the Silver Slugger. It just so happens that there are 8 positions other than pitcher.

I would also be fine with laying out specific non-subjective criteria of what constitutes "value" with the current MVP award, as well as the stuff that has been tacked on such as needing to be on a playoff team.