Yeah, my computer crashed. As such, I don't think I can write any more about this subject.
...just kidding!
Quote: Rob Kamphausen said: i think intangibles have a lot of weight, but arod's numbers were by far and away superior to any weight jeter's leadership offered.
I was referring to these set of quotes, from page 44:
"for example, i'd readily nominate jeter as mvp in most any season, despite (many) others having monumentally higher stat lines."
"more specifically, i'd say he's almost always been the mvp of the yankees, despite other yankees winning, or being in the running for, the actual league award."
I guess, then, you'd say that last year was one of the exceptions to the "almost always" part?
Quote: but there's no precise formula to calculate how many doubles equal an rbi or how many base hits equal a home run. are more homeruns more valuable than more basehits?
An RBI doesn't really equal anything, though. It is one of those stats I mentioned earlier that have been given far too much weight(batting average is another). It's a nice number to brag about with your buddies, but in terms of the value it actually represents towards the individual, it's pretty useless. Mickey Mantle, the greatest hitter of the last half century(who isn't suspected of using steroids, at least), drove in 100+ runs just four times, in 18 seasons. Juan Gonzalez did it eight times, in about 800 fewer games, and Gonzalez wasn't nearly as good a hitter as Mickey.
As for how many base hits equal a home-run, well, to put it simply...four. Four bases. But nobody really argues MVP's over "which is better, homeruns or base hits", nor should they. Even in just deciding who the best hitter was, you look at the total offensive performance, and you do that through tangible, comparable factors.
Quote: Joe Mama said: When did I ever say that Jeter deserved the MVP last year?
You didn't. And I didn't say you did. I said you claimed Jeter was more valuable than A-Rod, and therefore, A-Rod couldn't be the MVP.
Quote: For the record, I do think Ortiz deserved the MVP last year. He had great all-around numbers (yes, I know he didn't steal many bases), didn't embarrass himself the admittedly few times he played the field, and had all the intangibles that most people value and you seemingly de-value in the face of every number stat you can find (leadershipand clutch hits, for example). I also think that, numbers aside, A-Rod was not the MVP of the Yankees - that honor would go to Matsui or Rivera or (maybe) Jeter.
I've already explained my position. Statistically, A-Rod was superior offensively, and significantly superior when you consider his statistical contributions outside the batters box(in the field, and on the basepaths). I do not dispute that Ortiz is the leader of his team, and that as such he should be afforded some extra points in MVP consideration. I simply don't see how something as undefinable and unquantifiable as "leadership" can overcompensate for the significant difference in what was definably and quantifiably clear. It's nonsensical. The MVP shouldn't be a popularity contest.
Quote: That said, I also think there were other choices besides Ortiz or A-Rod. Johan Santana comes to mind, though the prejudice against pitchers as MVPs makes his winning difficult at best.
I think it's less prejudice than it is reason. The five man rotation has drastically reduced the starting pitchers impact over the course of a full-season. There's just only so much they can do, playing once every fifth day.
