Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Look! Over there!
Not much to say really. Watching Clemens get booed and give up 3 runs to the first 4 batters is pretty cool. What I really wanted to say is: check out the Bonds steroid talk and mvp analysis over at ussmariner and Mariners Wheelhouse. Good stuff. He is just ridiculous, and any argument for Rolen as MVP should be taken with about as much credence as arguments of the immenent threat of Saddam's WMDs. Also, I agree about the steroids - I don't think he has taken steroids - hell, even Gary Payton put on 20 pounds of muscle in the 2002 offseason - but I would like to know for sure. Just screw the union and do a test Barry! Let them publicly test and announce your samples from last season for THG! Who cares about fellow players, you're done soon, and you won't go down well in history if your name isn't definitively cleared.
this just in from our friend Ben:
do you think piazza is tipping off the hitters
"psssss...manny, here comes the heater"
Edit: also, over there! at Nice Guys Finish Third - or, rather, at the linked article discussing a fantastic idea about the sounds of the game.
this just in from our friend Ben:
do you think piazza is tipping off the hitters
"psssss...manny, here comes the heater"
Edit: also, over there! at Nice Guys Finish Third - or, rather, at the linked article discussing a fantastic idea about the sounds of the game.
# posted by Anonymous @ 7:53 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
This is way too late to be making this comment, but who cares. I know you like win shares. I also like win shares. Current calculations have Bonds at 27 win shares and Rolen at 24. Which means Rolen is actually not that far behind Bonds in terms of value to team. Throw in the records of STL and SF, and its possible to make an argument for Rolen for MVP. Of course, the inventor of Win Shares stated that they werent an in season measure, and could only be accurately measured after the completition of the season. And it is hard to argue with a .600 on base percentage
first of all, bonds, as of 7/5, had 27.4 ws and rolen 23.4 - how bonds' was rounded down to 27 while rolen was rounded up to 24 is beyond me. though its only a difference of 1 more ws, it is worth noting.
second, their win shares above average are 20 and 14, respectively (guess who is at 20).
Even more striking, their ws rate state - wsp (win shares percentage) - are vastly different: 1.786 for bonds, 1.288 for rolen. To give some perspective, that's a farther gap than between rolen and hee seop choi (.798), or, to find an everyday player (though choi has has 82 games and 289), about the same difference as rolen and brian giles (.772), or, to be completely unfair, tomo ohka (.768) look them up - are they mvp candidates this year?
second, their win shares above average are 20 and 14, respectively (guess who is at 20).
Even more striking, their ws rate state - wsp (win shares percentage) - are vastly different: 1.786 for bonds, 1.288 for rolen. To give some perspective, that's a farther gap than between rolen and hee seop choi (.798), or, to find an everyday player (though choi has has 82 games and 289), about the same difference as rolen and brian giles (.772), or, to be completely unfair, tomo ohka (.768) look them up - are they mvp candidates this year?
# posted by 
: 2:23 PM
: 2:23 PM
Win Shares Percentage is bogus for MVP consideration. If you aint playing, you aint helping the team, no matter how incredibly you perform while you are playing. Of course, I wouldnt mind taking WSP into percentage as long as we could retoractively award Pedro the 2002 and 2003 Cy Youngs, where he was clearly the most effective pitcher when pitching, but got punished for not throwing as many innings as Zito and Halladay.
In other MVP related news, we come to the winning team argument. Frankly, despite how good Arod obvisouly is, I would say he didnt deserve the MVP last year, because his team finished in last place. Dont you have to factor team records in somewhere?
In other MVP related news, we come to the winning team argument. Frankly, despite how good Arod obvisouly is, I would say he didnt deserve the MVP last year, because his team finished in last place. Dont you have to factor team records in somewhere?
I think winning does matter to a degree, except in extreme cases where no one was close to the player from the losing team, as in last year. Who deserved it last year? Ortiz, for being "clutch" for half a season, in the middle of the best lineup we've seen in ages? Shannon Stewart, for a couple months of service in the baggy? Or Posada, for putting up a good season on a winner?
As for the win share percentage, bons has played only 9 fewer games and has 18 fewer plate appearances. Bonds is showing up. And further, if you have a player who dominates the league and leads his team, despite being the second most feared bat in their lineup, to a 7 game lead in the final standings in his division, and another player who dominates that player by the same amount that the first player dominated the leauge, but missed 20 games, and led his team into the playoffs with only a one game lead in their division - and his team was terrible without him, only winning the division because of how completely he dwarfed the competition in the 142 games he did play - would you award the first player with the MVP? I sure wouldn't.
Post a Comment
As for the win share percentage, bons has played only 9 fewer games and has 18 fewer plate appearances. Bonds is showing up. And further, if you have a player who dominates the league and leads his team, despite being the second most feared bat in their lineup, to a 7 game lead in the final standings in his division, and another player who dominates that player by the same amount that the first player dominated the leauge, but missed 20 games, and led his team into the playoffs with only a one game lead in their division - and his team was terrible without him, only winning the division because of how completely he dwarfed the competition in the 142 games he did play - would you award the first player with the MVP? I sure wouldn't.
# posted by : 11:41 PM
: 11:41 PM << Home
