the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted September 18, 2003 I am thinking, maybe hitting Stinnett, he figured use him in the 5th inning and save the bigger guns. Add that in with Stinnett's experience. Maybe they wanted his plate discipline up there since Redman was wild and young guys might try too hard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted September 18, 2003 Hopefully the Twins can win tonight and really get a firm grasp on the Central Division title. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MD2020 Report post Posted September 18, 2003 Phils Win! Phils Win! Phils Win! Thome homers in the eight to win the game 5-4. Talk about a clutch hitter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mik 0 Report post Posted September 18, 2003 Dayum. Thank God we finish with the Mets, and when the Phils come to Pro Player next week things will be different. Marlins are MUCH better at home (but then again who isn't?) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 I wouldn't discount the Mets. They are all young guys playing for jobs, so they are going to be busting their ass. On the other hand the Phils are going to be playing a "we don't give a fuck anymore" Braves team on their final weekend. And Jim Thome should be NL MVP. Just thought I would throw that in there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 If it weren't for Bonds and Pujols, I'd agree with you. .283/.424/.604 this month. Not quite Yaz numbers, but still very good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 I would put him ahead of Pujols, because the Cards would still be good. Without Thome the Phils are awful. And I think the Giants would still be contenders without Bonds, and he hasn't produced as many runs as Thome. Thome 184 runs (R + RBI - HR) Bonds 148 runs Throw in the fact that Thome is the heart of his team and I think that makes a case for him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fökai 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Thome - .269/.390/.566 (150 games played) 546 AB 105 runs 147 hits 29 doubles 43 HR 122 RBI 309 total bases 107 BB 170 strikeouts Bonds - .340/.532/.750 (122 games played) 368 AB 105 runs 125 hits 20 doubles 43 HR 86 RBI 276 total bases 143 BB 54 strikeouts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Thome does have a case over Bonds, just because of that gap in games played. I didn't know it was that big. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Hear we go Boston...Hear we go! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Here's a question about MVP voting. Why does a voter even have a player on the losing team on in his top 10? Seriously, if you think MVP is for players on contending teams than why should you give A-Rod or Delgado any votes at all? If you think he's deserving to win that's fine. But if he doesn't fit what you think an MVP should be, why have him on your ballot at all? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Because if you limit yourself to contending teams, your bottom players look fairly mediocre by comparison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Here's a question. Why should the MVP only come from contending teams? I mean, its a voter's choice, but a few posters talk about making it an official rule. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Here's a question. Why should the MVP only come from contending teams? I mean, its a voter's choice, but a few posters talk about making it an official rule. I always wondered if a Player hit .402 hit 50 homers and had 145+ rbi's...and was on a losing team...would people be going "NO MVP!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JangoFett4Hire 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Hear we go Boston...Hear we go! What are you talking about? Choken One said they'd be out of it by now... they aren't still in the playoff hunt, are they?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted September 19, 2003 I did? I never said a damn thing...I might have said ""History indicates they will"... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 How about props for the guy that said that Mueller would start at third, and Shea would get turfed? Now who's leading the AL in batting again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Thome - .269/.390/.566 (150 games played) 546 AB 105 runs 147 hits 29 doubles 43 HR 122 RBI 309 total bases 107 BB 170 strikeouts Bonds - .340/.532/.750 (122 games played) 368 AB 105 runs 125 hits 20 doubles 43 HR 86 RBI 276 total bases 143 BB 54 strikeouts Thome does have a case over Bonds, just because of that gap in games played. I didn't know it was that big. *looks for case* *doesn't find it* *scratches head* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 28 more games. 9 more extra base hits. 36 more runs produced. Gold Glove caliber fielding. Leadership. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Gold glove caliber fielding is pushing it. Leadership is a bullshit quality. The big thing is those 28 games. Its tough to create value for your team when you're not playing. I don't know whether it pushes Thome over Bonds, but its certainly an issue to consider. In any case, I wouldn't put Thome over Pujols. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MD2020 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 28 more games. 9 more extra base hits. 36 more runs produced. Gold Glove caliber fielding. Leadership. Also: not a fucking jackass. I would be surprised if Thome wins the MVP. However, I'd like it, escpecially since (I think) Bonds won it in 1993, when Dykstra should have won it. Where would the Phils have been without the season put together by the Dude? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 I would be surprised if Thome wins the MVP. However, I'd like it, escpecially since (I think) Bonds won it in 1993, when Dykstra should have won it. Where would the Phils have been without the season put together by the Dude? Well San Francisco won 103 games that year, and lost the division in the last game of the season. Bonds really had Dykstra beat. Dykstra had 3 more BB, and 7 more Steals, but that's all you can give him. Bonds hit .336/.458/.677 that year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Thome is tied for 3rd in NL 1B fielding percentage. And is tied for first among people who have played over 125 games at the position. And I don't see why leadership is a bullshit quality. Should it be taken into account as much as everything else? Of course not. But should it be a piece of the puzzle? Yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 28 more games. 9 more extra base hits. 36 more runs produced. Gold Glove caliber fielding. Leadership. OPS 332 points less. Tied in home runs, despite 28 more games. Only 9 more extra-base hits, despite 28 more games. 116 more strikeouts. Walk to strikeout ratio less than 1, instead of over 3. Underachieving team. And, of course, there's the small matter that Bonds IS the Giants. Without him, they're the Tigers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChris 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 28 more games. 9 more extra base hits. 36 more runs produced. Gold Glove caliber fielding. Leadership. Also: not a fucking jackass. I would be surprised if Thome wins the MVP. However, I'd like it, escpecially since (I think) Bonds won it in 1993, when Dykstra should have won it. Where would the Phils have been without the season put together by the Dude? Bonds has also had at least two other MVP awards stolen from him (see: Pendleton, Terry; Kent, Jeff). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the pinjockey 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 OPS and strikeouts I agree with. I think the underachieving team is more a credit to Thome than a detriment. It was supposed to be the year of Abreu-Thome-Burrell becoming a god like trio of 120 HR 400 RBI. Instead Burrell died, Abreu decided to just stay where he is as a player (very good, not great), and Thome has done what he was brought here to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Thome is tied for 3rd in NL 1B fielding percentage. And is tied for first among people who have played over 125 games at the position. Fielding percentage doesn't measure much, besides a player not screwing up. In any case, Bonds plays a tougher position, and he's considered a good fielder. So Thome can't gain any ground in that department. And I don't see why leadership is a bullshit quality. Should it be taken into account as much as everything else? Of course not. But should it be a piece of the puzzle? Yes. Because how is leadership any different from performing well, in Thome's case? Thome's "leadership" is measured in his hitting stats. I think the underachieving team is more a credit to Thome than a detriment. It was supposed to be the year of Abreu-Thome-Burrell becoming a god like trio of 120 HR 400 RBI. Instead Burrell died, Abreu decided to just stay where he is as a player (very good, not great), and Thome has done what he was brought here to do. Bobby Abreu is one of those players who is going to be criticised for not being more than he is, even when he's still very good. He's gone 20/20 five straight years now. An OBP over .400 5 out of 6 years. Every year he walks 100+ times. Players like Abreu are always criticised because they're not spectacular, but I'll take Abreu's production any day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BobbyWhioux Report post Posted September 19, 2003 I always wondered if a Player hit .402 hit 50 homers and had 145+ rbi's...and was on a losing team...would people be going "NO MVP!" Look up Teddy Ballgame's numbers from '42 and '47, and bear in mind that both years the MVP went to some Yankee second baseman whose name I can't remember. The Sox went nowhere those two years, the Yanks made the world series, dropping it to the Cardinals in 42 and beating The Dodgers in 47. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Look up Teddy Ballgame's numbers from '42 and '47, and bear in mind that both years the MVP went to some Yankee second baseman whose name I can't remember. Keep in mind that the press hated Ted Williams in those days. In any case, the 1942 award went to Joe Gordon, who is possibly the Yankees best second baseman in franchise history. A Jeff Kent type player, and a borderline Hall of Fame candidate. I don't know why he got the award in '42. He hit .322, but Williams was better in every facet. Its not like Boston wasn't in it that year. They finished 2nd, and won 93 games. In '47, the award went to Joe Dimaggio, by one point. If a writer had moved Williams up two spots on his ballot, Williams would've won. Williams did win in '46. Keep in mind that writers in those days were not sabermetrically inclined, so OBP didn't mean as much as it does now. Williams for years was a top 3 candidate. Even when the Sox didn't win, he got the votes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bored 0 Report post Posted September 19, 2003 Okay now I know batting average doesn't really mean anything, well it does some what but just isn't given as much credit as it used to and isn't a fair way to judge a player. BUT the voters do look at batting average and like I said earlier its been 14 years since any player in either league won the MVP with a sub-.300 avg and the lowest average ever for an MVP winner was .269 by Roger Maris in '61. Thome is right at that and Thome isn't breaking the homerun record so I seriously doubt he is going to win it. Bonds is going to get sympathy votes for his dad dying but I don't think he's played enough this year to deserve the award a la Pedro when it comes to the Cy Young. I think the MVP should go to Pujols although the Cardinals collapse isn't going to help but I'd give it to him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
