Bored

Since I'm on the starting pitcher theme I'm going with another year where a starting pitcher was in serious contention for the award. Pedro Martinez went 23-4 with a 2.07 ERA in 1999 and finished 2nd in the A.L. MVP voting. He would actually receive more first place votes than any other candidate, eight, but fell 13 voting points behind the winner Ivan Rodriguez. 1999 was the height of the offesive explosion during the late 90's which is now labeld the steroid era. It's not surprising Martinez received so much support as a pitcher putting up those kind of numbers with the game being dominated by offense. Rodriguez's MVP win has been ridiculed heavily by the stathead crowd. With so many great offensive performances during the year his numbers paled in comparison to many others. Of course his excellent defense earns him bonus points and his numbers in many other years would have been MVP calibar but not in 1999. Given his win and Pedro's strong showing maybe it was a little writer backlash against the "arena baseball" that was being played that year. In all of this though the biggest contributer to Rodriguez's win may have been teammates Roberto Alomar and Manny Ramirez splitting their votes as they finished with the exact same number of first place votes and ended up tied for 3rd overall. If a couple of first place votes had been switch to the other one of them would have won the MVP. So how bad of a choice was Pudge? Was Pedro Martinez really the MVP? Should have one of the Indians won it? Actual Results 1) Ivan Rodriguez 2) Pedro Martinez 3t) Roberto Alomar 3t) Manny Ramirez 5) Rafael Palmeiro 6) Derek Jeter 7) Nomar Garciaparra 8) Jason Giambi 9) Shawn Green 10) Ken Griffey Jr 11) Bernie Williams 12) Carlos Delgado 13) Juan Gonzalez 14) Mariano Rivera 15) Alex Rodriguez 16) Omar Vizquel 17) Matt Stairs 18t) John Jaha 18t) B.J. Surhoff #10 .309/.384/.588, 136 RC, 143 OPS+, .317 EQA, 69.3 VORP, 24 Win Shares #9 .315/.422/.553, 134 RC, 148 OPS+, .332 EQA, 75.6 VORP, 30 Win Shares #8 .285/.384/.576, 132 RC, 138 OPS+, .312 EQA, 75.7 VORP, 31 Win Shares #7 245 ERA+, 8.46 K/BB, 0.92 WHIP, 101.0 VORP, 27 Win Shares #6 .324/.420/.630, 151 RC, 160 OPS+, .336 EQA, 86.1 VORP, 31 Win Shares #5 .323/.422/.533, 127 RC, 140 OPS+, .324 EQA, 86.4 VORP, 35 Win Shares #4 .357/.418/.603, 133 RC, 152 OPS+, .335 EQA, 97.0 VORP, 32 Win Shares #3 .342/.435/.536, 139 RC, 157 OPS+, .330 EQA, 90.6 VORP, 33 Win Shares #2 .333/.442/.663, 151 RC, 174 OPS+, .352 EQA, 89.3 VORP, 35 Win Shares #1 .349/.438/.552, 149 RC, 161 OPS+, .337 EQA, 118.0 VORP, 35 Win Shares Really who else could it have been? The guy is the MVP every year! FACE OF BASEBALL~! Anyways for the all the hype Jeter gets as a living legend, 1999 was truly the one year where he was out of this world and he's never really come close to it since. It's so far above any other year he's had you could call it a fluke at this point. But it is interesting that in this year he didn't come that close to winning the MVP. As much as I mock the Jeter lovefest by New York media/fans, ESPN, and Fox I do feel that he is some what underrated by non-Yankee fans who are so sick of the hype. Maybe it's possible non-New York writers are the same way. Also when you look at the little support Bernie Williams had there could have also been a bit of a Yankee backlash after their historically dominate 1998 season. Who knows, maybe Jeter's legend didn't truly reach ridiculous levels until his insanely overrated play in the Game 3 of the 2001 ALDS when THAT FAT FUCK JEREMY GIAMBI DIDN'T SLIDE!!!! Oh and going back to the original subject of the thread, Martinez like every year had to a skip a few starts and that has always hurt his potential MVP credentials. It's really a tribute to his great season that despite only making 29 starts he would crack the Top 10. And yes Rodriguez was a very bad choice as MVP although he came very close to being in the Top 10 and I flip-flopped between him and Green for the 10 spot.

Really any of the top five would have made fine choices. Most years there isn't one player who completely blows away everyone else that there is no justifying not picking them.

It's one night late but thank god UCLA beat Cal which probably bursts Cal's bubble without some help. A season sweep of the Bruins probably would have put them in. Having Stanford's tournament streak snapped this year is bad enough but Cal in the tournament would just make it that much worse.

Great I flip on the China/Korea game to catch it at the very second Jeff Brantley gets a hard on for the Korean captain laying down a bunt. LEAD BY EXAMPLE~! Ugh.

And things just get bleaker for the Nationals, Jose Guillen is out three months with a wrist injury. I think there is a legitimate chance they'll finish behind the Marlins. http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp...t=.jsp&c_id=was

Guess who Billy Wagner's replacement on the U.S. team is? Al Leiter. Really having to scrape the bottom of the barrel of finding anyone still wanting to participate.

Okay back to the redos. In the last two redos I took away an MVP from a closer, Willie Hernandez and Dennis Eckersley. Since I've established that closers should not receive serious consideration for the MVP award and now to turn the focus to starting pitchers. In the last three redos a starting pitcher cracked the Top 10 but I didn't give any of them serious thought for the #1 spot. In today's game with five man rotations and relaitvely stricter pitch counts a pitcher it is difficult for a starting pitcher to rack up the innings to match the value of an everyday player. You have to go back to 1980 to find the last starting pitcher to throw over 300 innings in a single season, Steve Carlton. Since that year three closers have won the MVP award but only one starting pitcher, Roger Clemens in 1986. It seems very odd that closers now seemingly have a better shot to win an MVP than starting pitchers. Now this brings me to a year that a starting pitcher received serious consideration for the MVP and deservedly so, 1995. Remember 1995? The strike was still going on by Spring Training and we came very close to seeing replacement/scab players fielding Major League teams in games that counted but it ended right before Opening Day. I can even remember an exhibition game at the Coliseum with scab players right before the strike ended. The start of the season was pushed back to late April and the season shrunk to 144 games. That year Greg Maddux had probably the best season a starting pitcher has had in my lifetime. He went 19-2 with 1.63 ERA, which was actually slightly higher than his previous year but he had better peripherals. He would win the Cy Young unanimously and finish 3rd in the MVP voting with seven first place votes. 2nd place went to Dante Bichette who benefitted from Coors Field and the Rockies surprise run to the Wild Card in the third year of exsistence. The winner would be Barry Larkin. Larkin's win has been perceived as possibly not deserving since '95 as he followed up that year with an even better season in '96 and I'd count myself as one of the doubters to this point. One interesting result in the '95 voting was the complete lack of support for Barry Bonds who finished 12th overall as the Giants floundered at the bottom of the N.L. West. So was 1995 finally a year a starting pitcher should have won an MVP? Was Barry Larkin's win undeserving? Did Dante Bichette really have a better year than Barry Bonds? Actually Results 1) Barry Larkin 2) Dante Bichette 3) Greg Maddux 4) Mike Piazza 5) Eric Karros 6) Reggie Sanders 7) Larry Walker 8) Sammy Sosa 9) Tony Gwynn 10) Craig Biggio 11) Ron Gant 12) Barry Bonds 13) Mark Grace 14) Derek Bell 15) Jeff Bagwell 16t) Andres Galarraga 16t) Charlie Hayes 18t) Vinny Castilla 18t) Chipper Jones 20t) Fred McGriff 20t) Pete Schourek 22t) Jeff Conine 22t) Tom Henke #10 .340/.364/.620, 131 RC, 130 OPS+, .286 EQA, 54.7 VORP, 23 Win Shares #9 .326/.395/.516, 113 RC, 143 OPS+, .309 EQA, 56.3 VORP, 23 Win Shares #8 .368/.404/.484, 105 RC, 138 OPS+, .312 EQA, 56.5 VORP, 23 Win Shares #7 .298/.369/.535, 108 RC, 145 OPS+, .309 EQA, 50.4 VORP, 25 Win Shares #6 .306/.397/.579, 110 RC, 155 OPS+, .320 EQA, 61.5 VORP, 27 Win Shares #5 .302/.406/.483, 104 RC, 141 OPS+, .317 EQA, 71.7 VORP, 29 Win Shares #4 .346/.400/.606, 105 RC, 172 OPS+, .338 EQA, 72.0 VORP, 27 Win Shares #3 .319/.394/.492, 96 RC, 134 OPS+, .311 EQA, 77.1 VORP, 30 Win Shares #2 .294/.431/.577, 125 RC, 168 OPS+, .339 EQA, 77.0 VORP, 36 Win Shares #1 259 ERA+, 7.87 K/BB, 0.81 WHIP, 94.0 VORP, 30 Win Shares I'm starting to remember why I stopped collecting baseball cards, too damn many of them by the mid-90s. So there you have it, Greg Maddux should have been the first N.L. pitcher to win the MVP since Bob Gibson in 1968. But in retrospect Barry Larkin was hardly a bad choice and was a deserving candidate as again with most years there always a few good candidates. There is a very good case to be made for Mike Piazza as well. As it turns out beyond Bichette's 2nd place finish and Bonds lack of support the '95 voting wasn't too bad. Okay there was one bizarre result with Charlie Hayes getting four voting points. Even his baseball writer friendly numbers were nothing special (.276 AVG, 11 HR, 85 RBI) and he played on a losing team.

Time to take a brief break from the nostalgia. On Tuesday the first conference tournaments in college basketball will tip off and thus starts the two weeks of the season that render the regular season meaningless. The idea that with two weeks left in the season that almost every team in college basketball has a chance to qualify for the tournament is insane. The majority of conferences every team qualifies for their conference tournament. It is technically possible for a team to go winless in its conference yet qualify for the field of 65. What is this the Special Olympics? Everybody is a winner! First starting with the major conferences…what is the point? Almost every winner in the conference tournament of a major conference was getting into the tournament anyways. Really why should beating a conference team on a neutral court (well depending on where tournament is being played which I’ll get to) matter in qualifying for the tournament? You likely won’t meet another conference team in the real tournament until the Elite Eight or Final Four and typically a team who’s chances of getting into the real tournament are depending on how they play in their conference tournament aren’t going to get that far. Also if a major conference team goes undefeated in conference play, like Duke at the moment, what do they have left to prove? Why should they risk injury in essentially meaningless games for them? For a team like Duke the ACC tournament is almost like an exhibition because they’ve already wrapped up a #1 seed. Can you imagine what would happen if J.J. Reddick were injured in a nothing ACC first round game? Okay that would be worth just to see Dick Vitale openly weep on live television. Now with the smaller conferences it does a get little more tricky. Defenders of the conference tournaments will say this is the only exposure they get which is a valid point. But what really bothers me about conference tournaments for smaller conferences is a team can have their entire season wiped out by one bad game or a team that has absolutely no business getting into the tournament can have one hot week qualify four the tournament just to get annihilated by a #1 seed. These smaller conferences where they will only get one bid there is always a chance a team with a losing record or just hovering over .500 will get into the tournament just because they won three straight games in early March in their weak conference. By not including the best team from every conference they are just devaluing the overall strength of the real tournament. If you actually included the truly best teams from all these smaller conferences maybe every once in a while we’d get an interesting #1 vs. #16 game. A glaring problem with conference tournaments is that many are played at the same venue every year thus some teams get home court advantages ever year. Duke and North Carolina will always have more fans in the ACC tournament as its played Greensboro, NC every year. UCLA and USC will always have home court in the Pac-10 tournament as it always played in Los Angeles. It’s ridiculous especially in a conference like the Pac-10 where there is an NBA arena in every region of the conference that would be perfectly capable of hosting the tournament on a rotating basis. Why is there this refusal in most conferences to rotate where the tournament hosted? Sure it’s all about ticket sales but you can’t tell me in each conference there is only one venue that can put a decent number of people in the seats for a tournament. I’d personally like conference tournaments to go away. You win your regular season title, you should get an automatic bid. If there was a system in place where if there was a tie for a regular season title that they had a one game playoff between the top two teams then that would be perfectly fine. In fact why can’t there just be a conference title game for every conference between the 1st and 2nd place teams (or division winners in conferences like the SEC and Big XII) in every conference this time of year rather than this nonsense where the 11th place team gets to extend its season? For smaller conferences most of them only get their title game televised by ESPN anyways. To be honest I’m not even sure all these small conferences should get a bid but that’s for another entry. But they’re here to stay and ESPN can romanticize them all want but really they’re celebrating how pointless it was to watch the last four months of games.

I could definently see that happen as the play in game is such a clossal joke as it is. I say have a true play in game where you have two bubble teams go at it for the last #12 seed. That would at least be interesting rather than watching two teams fight for the right to lose by 40 to Duke.

I'll take the 49ers again.

ESPN: OMG BARRY BONDS DRESSED UP AS PAULA ABDUL!!!! Oh that Barry he's so whacky. Gee ESPN showing this clip over and over again wouldn't be some planned bit for his "reality" show? Nah, couldn't be. ESPN never shills their own shows.

True story, the A's Danny Haren was placed on the Netherlands provisional roster but there was one problem. They didn't check with him to see if he actually had any Dutch heritage. He didn't. Suffice to say he turned down the offer to play. It was about that time I heard that story that I really started to lose interest.

Kenny seems to take things really personally when a player leaves on not the best terms. He basically did the same thing when Magglio Ordonez left. Thomas pretty much squashed the whole thing today but makes that first trip back to Chicago all the more fun.

You know I'm constantly hearing how Arizona is on the bubble yet they are #19 RPI and no team in the RPI Top 30 has ever not made the tournament let alone one in the Top 20. They aren't as good as the RPI rating but they are pretty to a close to a lock at the moment to keep their tournament streak alive.

Basically an IQ test with 50 questions that you have 12 minutes to do which most don't complete. Average score for a quarterback is 24.

Okay finally taking a break from the Award Redos...until the next entry probably. For the next Where'd The Go? I wanted to find a team that was a complete fluke. A team that had success one year with no winning seasons in the years prior and then no winning seasons in the years after which where the '89 Cubs qualify. Actually I could have also picked the '84 Cubs but decided to go with the more recent example. Cubs history of futility is well documented and every time they have a glimmer of success it becomes big news. Before the '89 season there last winning season had been 1984 and their next winning season after would not be until 1993. In '89 the fielded the second youngest team in the National League with several key players who were rookies or second year players. Managed by future Joe Torre cabana boy Don Zimmer the Cubs went on a magical run to the N.L. East title with a 93-69 record before Will Clark pretty almost single handily dispatched them in the NLCS. Given how young they were it figured they were a nice core to lead this team to a championship down the line but they never even came close after 1989. Here's a look back as to where this team went. C: Damon Berryhill (.257/.291/.341, 6.0 VORP, 12 Win Shares) - Just his second year Berryhill had pretty much established self as an unspectacular catcher who'd bounce around the Majors for a while and that's what he did. He had rotator cuff surgery in September of that year so he was not on the postseason roster and was filled in by rookie Joe Girardi. He'd be traded to the Braves a couple of years later where he'd be their regular catcher during the 1992 postseason. Had one year stints with the Red Sox, Reds, and Giants before calling it quits after 1997. 1B: Mark Grace (.314/.405/.457, 43.7 VORP, 25 Win Shares) - Another second year player, Grace was a rising star at this time and this would end up being one of his best years. He would lead the Majors in hits during the decade of the 90's which will probably get his some mild HOF support but really isn't one. Played withe Cubs thru 2000 before signing with the Diamondbacks where he'd pick up a World Series ring in 2001. 2B: Ryne Sandberg (.290/.356/.497, 56.8 VORP, 28 Win Shares) - I to this day have never met someone named "Ryne". Anyways he had usual good season in '89 and would finish 4th in the MVP voting. He would retire during the 1994 season but then unretire before 1996 to play two more years withe Cubs. Inducted into the HOF last year. 3B: Luis Salazar (.282/.316/.414, 13.0 VORP, 10 Win Shares) - The actual regular 3rd baseman in the regular season was Vance Law but he was just terrible so the Cubs acquired Salazar from the Padres at the waiver trade deadline. Not that he was much better than Law but he did hit surprisingly well for them the last month of the season and the NLCS. Maybe that ended up being bad for the Cubs as they hung onto him thru 1992 where he did nothing of note. SS: Shawon Dunston (.278/.320/.403, 29.1 VORP, 18 Win Shares) - I always figured they made a mistake on Shawon's birth certificate and he just never decided to fix it. It probably wasn't even until the mid-90's that I realized how to spell his name right. Could hit for a decent average and some power for a shortstop but couldn't draw a walk to save his life and just awful defensively but stuck around for 18 years. With the Cubs thru 1995 then bounced around to the Giants, back to the Cubs, Pirates, Indians, back to the Giants, Cardinals, Mets, back to the Cardinals, and then a 3rd stint with Giants where'd he retire after 2002. LF: Dwight Smith (.324/.382/.493, 31.5 VORP, 16 Win Shares) - Smith may have epitomized the '89 Cubs. With numbers like that in his rookie year you would have thought he was on his way to big things. Alas it didn't happen. Stuck around with the Cubs thru 1993, split time with the Angels and Orioles in 1994, and then spent two season with the Braves where in 1995 he got to pick up a World Series ring as a bench player. CF: Jerome Walton (.293/.335/.385, 25.9 VORP, 17 Win Shares) - Remember how excited you'd be to have the rookie card of any rookie who did anything without noticing they weren't that good to begin with? That was Jerome Walton for me. He won the 1989 N.L. ROY and that was about it for him in terms of relevance. Played with the Cubs thru '92 and then bounced from the Angels, Reds, Braves, Orioles, and to the Devil Rays. RF: Andre Dawson (.252/.307/.476, 19.3 VORP, 13 Win Shares) - By '89 the beating Dawson's knees to playing all those years on the Olympic Stadium turf started to catch up to him. He did rebound the following year for one more good year. With the Cubs thru 1992 and had two year stints with the Red Sox and Marlins before retiring after 1996. Pitchers Greg Maddux (128 ERA+, 35.4 VORP, 20 Win Shares) - Hey who's this guy? Only 23 years old at the time Maddux had already broken out with a strong year in 1988 and finished 3rd in the Cy Young voting in 1989. He'd post a 2.18 ERA in 1992 and as Cubs fans painfully know he'd sign a big money free agent contract after that season with the Braves where he'd become one of the greatest pitchers of all-time. Of course returned to the Cubs in 2004 where he is still active. Rick Sutcliffe (103 ERA+, 22.5 VORP, 14 Win Shares) - . This was Sutcliffe's last decent season as injury limited him to 23 starts the next two years. Would pitch two years with the Orioles and then a brief stint with the Cardinals in 1994 before retiring. Mike Bielecki (121 ERA+, 29.7 VORP, 16 Win Shares) - By far Bielecki's best season and part of the fluky nature of the '89 season and his long term future was in the bullpen. Traded with the Berryhill to the Braves after 1991, he'd three different trips to Atlanta with one year stints with the Angels and Indians mixed in. Paul Kilgus (86 ERA+, -14.1 VORP, 3 Win Shares) - With those numbers you can tell Kilgus wasn't Major League material. Was acquired in the Mitch Williams/Rafael Palmeiro trade before the season this would be his last season as a regular starter. Had cups of coffee with the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Cardinals. Scott Sanderson (96 ERA+, 7.1 VORP, 7 Win Shares) - Marginally effective pitcher that would play 19 years and who'd luck into signing with the defending World Champion A's after '89. Then went to the Yankees in 1991 where he'd have a good year then hung around the Majors thru 1996 primarily with the Angels. Closer: Mitch Williams (137 ERA+, 13.2 VORP, 12 Win Shares) - What can be said about this guy that hasn't been already? It's amazing he had any sucess at all with his lack of command. Achieved a bit of a cult status in 1989 due to his wild delivery. Dealt to the Phillies after 1990 where you know what happened in 1993. Then traded to the Astros after that year where he'd never be the same. A little story about Williams, he had a very brief stint with the Royals in 1997 where I saw him pitch one of his last games ever live against the A's on April 25, 1997. He was out of the Majors in 1996 but some how made the Royals out of Spring Training. The Royals were crushing the A's 10-3 and there were probably only about 3,000 people left in the park by the time Wild Thing came in for mop up duty in the 9th. We gave him a mocking standing ovation when he came out figuring he'd probably make the inning exciting. He'd walk Matt Stairs on four pitches to start the inning and went 3-0 to Scott Speizo and the little of us there were going nuts. He'd then recover to strike out Speizo and strike out the side of Scott Brosius and Tony Batista. Ya that was a bad omen for the '97 A's.

And the winner of the first offseason move to backfire goes to...the Washington Nationals. http://www.wvec.com/sharedcontent/APStorie.../D8G0B1NGD.html Couple this with Alfonso Soriano still refusing to move to left field this is going to be a looooooooooooooooooooong season for the Nats. Jim Bowden will be back at ESPN in 2007.

Oh god we're gonna have to pick middle relievers? I should have voted. Holds is about as bullshit a stat as there is. And ya throw ERA in there.

Let's see so far I've taken away MVPs from Andre Dawson, Willie Hernandez, and Willie Stargell. But now I have to do something truly painful...take away an MVP from a former member of the Oakland A's. I'm getting choked up just thinking about it. In 1992 Dennis Eckersley was the A.L. MVP & Cy Young winner just like Hernandez eight years earlier. Eck was his usual dominante self at that time with a 51 saves, 1.91 ERA, 8.45 K/BB Ratio, and 0.91 WHIP. There was one problem. Eck defined what the closer position has become today and that is one inning and done. In '92 he pitched 80 innings which as it turned out would end up being the most innings he'd ever throw as a closer. But a pitcher throwing 80 innings can't even come close to being truly the most valuable player on his own team let alone entire league. Now I loved Eckersley, he was a great story as a recovering alcoholic, and I fully supported him getting into the Hall of Fame due his unique career line. This is the guy who during a two year span in 1989 and 1990 in 131 innings, he had 128 strikeouts and walked only seven batters...SEVEN! But he was quite possibly one of the worst choices ever for MVP. Now in 1984 redo I said Hernandez wasn't deserving of serious consideration for MVP but that he may cracked the Top 15 and even though he wasn't the best choice for Cy Young, he wasn't a bad choice either. I can not say the same for Eckersley as it'd be quite a while before I'd reach him on a list of the most valuable in 1992 and there were a handful of pitchers who were much more deserving of winning the Cy Young such as Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina, and Kevin Appier. As for value to his own team Eckersley was no where near as valuable as Mark McGwire and Rickey Henderson that season. He was very important to the A's winning their 4th division title in five years but you have to play eight innings to get to him and other players have to make bigger impacts for them to come out on top...which you can pretty much say about every closer today. So today I take away the MVP from an Oakland Athletic...but maybe I'll just turn around and give it to another? Maybe it was one of the three Toronto Blue Jays in the Top 10? Or maybe it was someone who received no first place votes? Ya okay you probably figured it out by now. Actual 1992 Results 1) Dennis Eckersley 2) Kirby Puckett 3) Joe Carter 4) Mark McGwire 5) Dave Winfield 6) Roberto Alomar 7) Mike Devereaux 8) Frank Thomas 9) Cecil Fielder 10) Paul Molitor 11) Carlos Baerga 12) Edgar Martinez 13) Jack Morris 14t) Brady Anderson 14t) Roger Clemens 16) Juan Gonzalez 17) Ken Griffey Jr. 18) Pat Listach 19) Jack McDowell 20) George Bell 21t) Mike Bordick 21t) Mike Mussina 23) Albert Belle #10 175 ERA+, 3.35 K/BB, 1.07 WHIP, 64.9 VORP, 26 Win Shares #9 .315/.394/.467, 107 RC, 138 OPS+, .316 EQA, 58.4 VORP, 27 Win Shares #8 .343/.404/.544, 116 RC, 163 OPS+, .344 EQA, 76.4 VORP, 24 Win Shares #7 .290/.377/.491, 108 RC, 137 OPS+, .316 EQA, 54.0 VORP, 27 Win Shares #6 .312/.354/.455, 104 RC, 128 OPS+, .305 EQA, 63.3 VORP, 28 Win Shares #5 .329/.374/.490, 116 RC, 138 OPS+, .315 EQA, 64.1 VORP, 31 Win Shares #4 .320/.389/.461, 110 RC, 140 OPS+, .325 EQA, 67.4 VORP, 28 Win Shares #3 .268/.385/.585, 105 RC, 175 OPS+, .350 EQA, 64.7 VORP, 29 Win Shares #2 .310/.405/.427, 98 RC, 129 OPS+, .322 EQA, 67.9 VORP, 34 Win Shares #1 .323/.439/.536, 136 RC, 174 OPS+, .361 EQA, 89.3 VORP, 33 Win Shares Hey take away an MVP from a former A's player and give it to a current A's player, GENIUS! Thomas did not receive a single first place vote. He and the White Sox were slightly better the year before and he finished 3rd. He only hit 24 homeruns but had 46 doubles so he gets punished for supposed loss of power. Some how Joe Carter received four first place votes despite the great year Alomar had. Okay I know why, the almighty RBI but even he didn't lead the league that year as Cecil Fielder did. George Bell received three voting points with a spectacular line of .255/.294/.418 but Shane Mack didn't receive a single vote.

I think odds are either the Yankees or Red Sox will miss the playoffs this year. Which one, I'm not sure at the moment. The A.L. is stacked this year and I have a feeling the Wild Card will come out of the West or Central.

Here's 2004. Lots of Cubs going to the World Series and the Royals winning the A.L. Central predictions. Of course the thread kinda drifted off into the usual nonsense from a certain Yankees fan.

On the ESPN.com: Of course no one will be surprised if he changes his mind but this also isn't a surprise from the standpoint that many figured he'd only pass Ruth but wouldn't go after Aaron. It's highly unlikely he'll pay enough this year to hit 47 homeruns.

You know I really did want to avoid doing three straight entries of the same feature but dammit I'm loving doing this and this blog is basically my own playground to geek out on useless information so might as well keep doing what I love. Besides there's only two of you reading this. The 1979 N.L. MVP vote had the most unique result ever: a tie. A TIE!?!? What kind of a crap is that? There's no ties in baseball! I was only one year old at the time but I imagine there must have been riots across the country after this result was announced and if there wasn't there should have been. Fuck the hostage crisis, this was the biggest crisis in America in November 1979. Keith Hernandez and Willie Stargell shared the award in '79. Well I don't know if they shared, I'd assume they made two trophies otherwise that'd be a pretty cheap thing for MLB to do. Now what was odd, beyond the tied result, was Hernandez easily beat Stargell in first place votes, 10 to 4. There's no rule for a tiebreak but clearly more voters felt Hernandez was the MVP. In 3rd place was Dave Winfield who received the same number of first place votes as Stargell although due to the Padres poor performance Winfield probably was left off a few ballots all together as he finished 61 points behind the co-winners. So for over 26 years we've been stuck with this tie...until today. I will settle the debate. Get out your magic markers kids and get ready to cross out one of those names. Or will you be crossing out both of them? Actual 1979 results: 1t) Keith Hernandez 1t) Willie Stargell 3) Dave Winfield 4) Larry Parrish 5) Ray Knight 6) Joe Niekro 7) Bruce Sutter 8) Kent Tekulve 9) Dave Concepcion 10) Dave Parker 11) Dave Kingman 12) George Foster 13) Mike Schmidt 14) Steve Garvey 15t) Omar Moreno 15t) Pete Rose 17) Gary Carter 18) Bill Madlock 19) J.R. Richard 20) Phil Niekro 21t) Joe Sambito 21t) Tom Seaver 23) Johnny Bench 24) Andre Dawson 25) Garry Templeton 26) Gary Matthews 27) Dave Collins 28) Bob Horner #10 .314/.331/.458, 102 RC, 113 OPS+, .276 EQA, 63.4 VORP, 25 Win Shares #9 .303/.395.449, 106 RC, 135 OPS+, .306 EQA, 55.7 VORP, 25 Win Shares #8 130 ERA+, 3.19 K/BB, 1.09 WHIP, 68.7 VORP, 23 Win Shares #7 .265/.372/.464, 100 RC, 128 OPS+, .306 EQA, 68.6 VORP, 27 Win Shares #6 .331/.418/.430, 113 RC, 130 OPS+, .304 EQA, 54.7 VORP, 27 Win Shares #5 .307/.357/.551, 107 RC, 146 OPS+, .307 EQA, 59.0 VORP, 28 Win Shares #4 .310/.380/.526, 123 RC, 141 OPS+, .309 EQA, 58.1 VORP, 31 Win Shares #3 .253/.386/.564, 119 RC, 154 OPS+, .317 EQA, 64.1 VORP, 33 Win Shares #2 .308/.395/.558, 131 RC, 165 OPS+, .329 EQA, 68.7 VORP, 33 Win Shares #1 .344/.417/.513, 132 RC, 152 OPS+, .322 EQA, 71.9 VORP, 29 Win Shares There you have it, you can sleep well at night now that Keith Hernandez is the sole winner of the 1979 N.L. MVP. Someone please inform the widow Stargell that we must take away his half of the MVP award. Really Stargell had no business even being considered for the award. As you can see the Pirates best player was Dave Parker, who won the MVP himself the year before but since his numbers weren't as good as the previous year the voters penalized him. Stargell was probably only about the 4th or 5th best player on the team that year. But the reason whey he got so much support was because he was really fucking old and he was the "heart and soul" of the We Are Family Pirates and baseball writers get chubbies thinking of stuff like that.

I don't know, does Gary Matthews Jr. walk around with a 600 pound chip on his shoulder like Bonds? I saw it and it was hilarious. I think Bud Selig though crossed the game out of history with his magic marker though. I'm dissapointed I didn't make any cocaine jokes for Keith Hernandez and Dave Parker. You know I've named two former cokeheads as MVPs in Hernandez and "Rock" Raines. Cocaine is better than steroids, when will these modern players learn?

ESPN does already have their Opening Day schedule. April 2nd Indians at White Sox, ESPN2 April 3rd Nationals at Mets, ESPN Red Sox at Rangers, ESPN2 Braves at Dodgers, ESPN Giants at Padres, ESPN2 Yankees at A's, ESPN2 Mets, Red Sox, Barry Bonds, Yankees...don't act all surprised.