Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

Ken thanks for letting us know your reasoning behind this. I couldn't agree with you more on Pujols, and think your thinking of how you should vote is the right way to go.

For the people that will probably see this blog for the first time, Ken is not a Mets fan and putting Howard 6th isn't an anti-Philly bias.

For the regs: God there are two people that kill me here. Manny and Delgado. I agree with your Manny selection though. He was probably the 3rd (CC #2) most valuable player in the NATIONAL league. But the way he purposely tried to lose in Boston, makes me sick that he gets recognition. But though it makes me sick, I agree with your choice.

But Delgado...he doesn't deserve a vote.
In my opinion, he dogged it under Willie. So I dont see how he can get any MVP votes considering the Mets lost by a game. Had he in just two of those games tried harder, the Mets may have made the playoffs. Wright and Reyes were solid the whole way through, and deserved the vote over Delgado. As great as he was under Manuel, he was that bad under Willie. He put the Mets in the hole that they didn't need to be in.

But overall, Delgado was my only real complaint. I hope all writers share their views like you did. I'd like to see their thinking.

Lastly, has an MVP ever won with fewer first place votes than Pujols??

Incredible with what is going on today with Mark Cuban being charged with insider trading by the SEC. I don't think it will come as a surprise that this will keep him out of MLB.

ken,

Thank you for voting for Pujols. Good job. However, Manny at #2 and CC at #3 is questionable, considering the official, written criteria set out for MVP voters:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

Check out #2 - how can you vote a guy 2nd who played in just 53 games? You cannot use the VORP defense because Wright, Reyes, Utley and a ton of others beat Manny in that. I'm dumbfounded that people can vote for a guy who played just 53 games, when the written criteria states the number of games played should be considered.

Also, by this ballot, I'd have to conclude that your (hypothetical) NL Cy Young ballot went: Sabathia, Santana, Lidge... no Lincecum in your top 3? Lidge over Lincecum for Cy?

Thanks for listening Ken.

Based on Ken's vote and his 3 pitchers on his ballot (and I haven't looked for a list of the actual voting yet) the wrong pitcher won the NL Cy Young Award. If one of these pitchers had actually won MVP, how could they not have won Most Valuable Pitcher, which is what Cy Young Award really is, as well?

I think the Cy Young is a lot easier defined than MVP. The Cy Young is best pitcher. The MVP is NOT best player. Well not automatically. So I can totally see voting for Lincecum Cy Young but CC MVP.

James K. Ken switched his Cy Young once but it concluded with Lincecum and then Santana.

Thanks for sharing, Ken. I respectfully dissent on the Manny selection for the reason that was mentioned above. What I am interested in learning is who thought Pujols deserved a SEVENTH-PLACE vote? (Just curious: do the voters have to submit to random urine tests?)

Regarding your earlier post, Sandy, Eric Gagne was having a pretty good year for the Rangers when Theo traded for him, if I am not mistaken. Boston had every reason to believe that Gagne would help clinch the division. There's a difference between trading for a guy who you think will help you win the AL East as opposed to obtaining him just so that he wouldn't end up on the Yankees.

Ken, no problem with who you pick for NL MVP. Pujols winning it is no surprise, and I have nobody with it. I do have a few things that I have a issue with your ballot.
1. I would put Howard 2nd just because he carried the Phillies in September. And without him, I don't think they make the playoffs.
2. No Lincecum in the top 10?
3. Both Manny and Sabathia's stats should have been combined together. Both of them help their teams when arrive.

Pujols should have swept the first-place votes. He led in nearly every offensive category. What's amazing to me is that his ridiculous .462 OBP was actually second to Chipper Jones' .470.

The Giants signed Jeremy Affeldt to a reasonable two-year, 8-million-dollar contract. Seems like a solid signing. I'm surprised he went this early. We've heard the Mets attached to all the different closers, but I haven't heard them specifically attached to any setup men like Affeldt yet. You would hope they pick up at least one additional arm besides their new closer.

Richie,

Can you please make your case why a pitcher (Lincecum) who is tops on a person (Ken's) ballot for Cy Young would finish 4th behind 3 other pitchers in the MVP voting on that person's ballot? It doesn't follow logic. Please keep in mind the STATED MVP criteria which I listed in my comment above.

Did these other 3 pitcher perform excessively well at the plate to warrant more MVP consideration?

Please spare me the "they pitched for contenders" business - is it Lincecum's fault his team couldn't hit and his defenders couldn't field? I anxiously await the response.

Regards,
James

James K. (and Dennis), I can vote for a guy who played in 53 games because, I would argue, in the history of baseball, never has a guy who has played in only 53 games - had this sort of impact. The Dodgers simply wouldn't have made the playoffs without Manny, IMHO.

I didn't vote for the Cy Young Award. But I view the Cy Young and MVP as completely different animals. Cy Young is best pitcher, no questions asked, and Lincecum deserved that.

Lincecum didn't make my MVP ballot because he had minimal impact on the 2008 championship season. On what went down at the highest levels of competition.

Is it his fault that he didn't play meaningful games in September, or really after July? No. But that's the way I define this award. You have every right to challenge my thinking.

JE, I essentially agree with you, especially on Manny. While speaking of Ramirez, does anyone think he deserves a 4 or 5 year contract or do you think he was on his best behavior and once he gets the security of the deal will revert to his true self. Weren't his skills on the decline in Boston? Is he going to be as productive at 40 or 41 as he is today? Who is going to give him the contract he seeks?

I would switch Delgado and Santana (and thereby put two malcontents in the top 4 slots) and switch Howard and Lidge.

James the funny thing is Santana and CC are great at the plate. But so is Lincicum so there goes that argument.

But I agree with what Ken said. (And that doesn't happen all the time) The Cy Young is the best pitcher. Period. Doesn't matter what team you play for.

The MVP is a different animal. And I dont have to go any further than the first criteria. Actual value to his team. Without Lincecum, the Giants would have been horribly awful. With him they were just very awful. I would have a problem giving an MVP award to someone (especially a pitcher) on that bad a team, unless he absolutely blew away the competition. Without CC the Brewers dont sniff the playoffs. Not even close. Without Johan, the Mets dont suffer their second straight collapse bc they would never have been in it. Without Lidge, the Phillies finish behind the Mets. So their VALUE to their team in 2008 was significantly greater than Lincecum's value. Its why if I had a vote, I'd rarely vote a closer to be the Cy Young but I'd have no problem voting the closer to be MVP.

OK Ken, fair enough explanation. The problem I have with this whole "MVP is open to interpretation" is that the criteria do not mention the playoffs. As in, the criteria do not say "a guy on a team in the playoffs gets more consideration." These are the explicit criteria for picking the MVP:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

I dunno, that's my take. The criteria are pretty clearly outlined, in my opinion. Criteria #2 pretty much precludes Manny and Sabathia from consideration. Not to mention Manny's awful defensive play, which hurts his case in #1, but I digress. Also, if the Dodgers were in the NL East (and therefore wouldn't have made the playoffs with their record) would he still be so high on the ballot?

Richie,

So what you're saying is that if Lincecum was traded to the Cardinals at midseason, and they eventually made the playoffs, and his numbers were exactly the same as they were this year with the Giants, only THEN you would say it's OK to put Lincecum above Sabathia?

I dunno man, the logic here is really fuzzy. You're judging the "most valuable player" based on circumstances out of his control, when it should be 100% about his play on the field (i.e. things HE can control).

Additionally, stats exist to measure this "VALUE" you speak of: one is VORP, which Lincecum finished a close 2nd in the league to Johan Santana in. Another is WPA, which Lincecum led the league in. Just food for thought.

James I think how you deem valuable is different than how I deem valuable. And I think how I deem hte word is more closely to what most voters deem it. Doesn't mean its right, but I think what I say is true...or else Lincecum would have finished higher. How many votes did he get?

As for your trade scenerio...for this year yes. Because he would have been the difference maker. Now if he was the reason the Giants contended (like Pujols was for the Cards) then I would take that highly into consideration. Though for Cy Young I would take very little if any credence into pressure games etc.

But the other point is, I dont think Lincecum was all that much better than Santana. Maybe a little but not much. If he had a Gooden like 1985, then I absolutely would have put him over Santana even if those were the only games the Giants won. I give respect to All-time dominance. Something Lincecum was not this year.

Richie,

Man you're missing what I'm saying.

My point is not that I think Lincecum was the MVP - he wasn't. My point is that factors outside a player's control should not be heavily weighed when deciding MVP. This is just ludicrous to me.

And yeah, maybe the voters vote this way, but the voters are also morons. Some guy in Milwaukee put Pujols 7th on his ballot, and 12 put Howard #1 when he should've been like 7th or 8th. Richie, I'm guessing you're older than I am, and unfamiliar with high level baseball stats.

James, I think all of your arguments are valid. But here's the way I look at it: Santana's last start of the season - what it meant to the Mets - meant nothing extra in the Cy Young ballot. It meant a great deal in the MVP ballot.

Yes, I am penalizing Lincecum for circumstances beyond his control. I take ownership of that. But to me, the MVP of the baseball season is someone who had the greatest impact on what transpired during that season. And sadly for Lincecum, what he did had minimal impact. Not his fault, but reality. Not a highly intellectual argument, but one with which I'm comfortable, for now.

James on Sunday I will turn 37 and a half. How old are you?

And I do get what you are saying but I dont agree with it. I do think that factors outside of a players control matter.

I cant look at just stats. Ken's Sanana's example is perfect. I know you're not saying Lincecum is the MVP. What you're saying is I have to use the same order in the Cy Young as I do in the MVP when it comes to pitchers.

My reasoning for thinking Pujols should get the MVP, was he made the 2008 Cardinals contenders. Had he not been there, the Cards would have never have been a factor this season. And truthfully, I dont think anyone came close to putting up the #'s that he did, so I'd have to give him serious consideration if he played for a last place team because he was so much better than everyone else. But because he was on a contender, it was a no-brainer.

Lincecum was not far and away the best pitcher in the N.L. this year. Webb, CC, Santana and Lidge all gave him a run. They pitched in a lot more pressure filled situations that meant more to their team than Lincecum meant to his team. Obviously it wasn't his fault, but its reality.

Its like what Ralph Branca said to Ralph Kiner after Kiner asked for a raise after leading the league in Home Runs. "Kid, we coulda came in last place without ya!"

Richie,

I'm 23, and I'm willing to make a bet that you've never heard of or don't understand the following stats: VORP, WARP, EqA, WPA, WPA/LI, OPS+, ERA+. That's irrelevant I guess. I just feel like stats should be the starting point, and playoffs, pressure etc. should be secondary - the voters see it the other way around I think it's moronic.

Couple final points:
- I emailed the guy who put Pujols 7th on his ballot for an explanation (cause that's what I do for fun), and he said that my problem is that I"want to get too caught up in numbers, records and stats". He also said he didn't look at stats cause he didn't need to. This is beyond disgraceful, and I'd be ashamed to be a BBWAA voter after hearing something like that. He also said he disregarded the criteria set forth for the voting. Disgraceful.

- All these people want to talk about how Manny and C.C. "lifted their clubs" or whatnot, but consider this - before Manny's first game with LA, the Dodgers were just 2 games back of the D-Backs. It's not like they were 10 games back and Manny led them to some crazy comeback. Also, on the day of Sabathia's first start with Milwaukee, the Brewers were 4 games back of the Cubs and 1/2 game back in the Wild Card. Same point - they were not like 10 games back or something.

- Pujols' Cardinals finished 86-76, Manny's Dodgers finished 84-78.

- Richie, who would you rather have had this year: Lincecum for the full season or Sabathia for his 20 starts or so?

I will not make that bet James K., because you would win. I do not know any of those stats even after JE force fed me the Wikepedia entry on Voorp. I tried, it didn't take.

As for you being a loser and emailing a writer who put Pujols 7th. You got nothing on me kid. In 2001, Pudge went down mid September with an injury. I only had four or so roster moves left and was in a dogfight in my fantasy baseball league. I needed to know if they were going to put him on the DL or not (bc I had unlimited DL moves). So I pretended I was from Rotoworld and called the Rangers offices and tried to find out if they were going to put Pudge on the DL or not. Shockingly, I never got a call back. Thats how I roll. (I ended up dropping him, they never put him on the DL but I won the league!)

James, even if I did understand all those stats, it wouldn't matter. I'd still not give Lincecum MVP consideration. Only because I bet Johan's Voorps and OPS, and WHIP to BA to RBI in the 8th on Thursdays were probably really close.

Of course I'd rather have Lincecum for a full year than CC's 20. And I know the Brewers were in the race when they got him, but they wouldn't have stayed in the race without him. And I dont think the Dodgers would have won without Manny, though I certainly can be swayed in the loyalty argument.

You make a lot of valid points, and I really like your 23-year-old angst. But its not called the Most Best Player. Valuable is there for a reason. And I think many voters plus this former Rotowrold wannabe reporter take that into consideration.

Ken, if I die tonight, avenge my death and let the authorites know about James K.

LOL, Richie. James, you need to take it down a notch. I love your passion, but please don't get so personal and please try to respect other's opinions.

If you take the time to go through this blog, you'll see that I largely agree with you that the BBWAA is replete with morons.

To reiterate, I think a baseball season is a living, breathing organism. An MVP shouldn't be judged only by looking only at a spreadsheet, IMHO - notice I said "not only," as opposed to "not at all." The game is played by human beings, and I don't think that should be ignored altogether. I think Jimmy Rollins deserved points last year for making his "team to beat" proclamation and backing it up. I think Derek Jeter deserved to be penalized two years ago for his failure to support a slumping A-Rod. Because those are real things that occurred and shouldn't be discounted just because there's not a stat for them.

James, you asked if the Dodgers were in the NL East, would Manny still have been so high on the ballot? The answer is that, if the Dodgers were in the NL East, they probably wouldn't have bothered getting Manny in the first place. They got him because they were in the playoff hunt, and Manny played a crucial role in getting them to the playoffs. And he has the VORP and WARP to back it up, does he not? Incredible #s for a guy who played in only 53 games at a non-essential defensive position.

For the record, the comments never got personal, until Richie's last comment, featuring this gem:

"James, even if I did understand all those stats, it wouldn't matter. I'd still not give Lincecum MVP consideration. Only because I bet Johan's Voorps and OPS, and WHIP to BA to RBI in the 8th on Thursdays were probably really close."

The ignorance just oozes off the page doesn't it? Let me paraphrase: "Even if I had the mental capacity to understand these rather simple baseball stats, it wouldn't matter because of my ridiculous stubbornness. Go back to living in your mother's basement, nerd!"

One truly final, final point - the lack of recognition for Chase Utley year-in year-out is disturbing (and I'm a die hard Met fan). He placed 15th in the balloting this year. Another disgrace, and evidence that the voting needs to be taken out of the BBWAA's hands or just done away with altogether. Good night.

No, James, you made it personal when you decided that everyone above age 23 wasn't intelligent enough to decide who was the MVP. You need to learn to respect your elders a little more.

I hope you stick around this blog, but for crying out loud, stop pointing at everything at around you and saying you are "dumbfounded" by the "disgrace" of it all.

If you want to have an intelligent debate, I think many people would agree there are worse places to be than this blog. We have plenty of discussions of VORP, WARP, ERA+ and OPS+. But there's a level of civility to which you are not adhering.

OK Ken, my apologies. I'm an even tempered guy, but I get heated around awards time for whatever reason. While my stereotyping of the elders may be unfair, I think my perception that most people aged 35+ still think batting average, rbi and w-l record are the stats that make a player is a fair one (yourself excluded, obviously). It's taken years of convincing to get my 50+ year old father to accept and embrace OBP.

You're the only NY writer I've identified who has a sabermetric inclination, so I definitely plan on sticking around. I've made some posts here or there in the past. Usually the posts are good natured, but the awards voting always brings out the worst in me.

I mean c'mon, Pujols 7th most valuable player?!?! What a dis-- Just kidding, I'm done. Check out metsgeek.com tomorrow for my analysis of the top 10 mets individual hitting seasons in history.

Thanks for checking back in, James. I feel your pain. Every time my doorman cites batting average, I give him the "I'm not listening!" routine and explain to him what a horrible stat that is. And I'm with you on Pujols seventh. That is a joke. OK, we're all going to sleep happy! :)

James sometimes internet humor escapes some people and sometimes so does my internet jokes. I wasn't making fun of you for your Vorp on Thursday night games held in Atlanta when a lefthander pitches the 7th inning. I was making fun of myself for as you stated, not being smart enough to understand it.

Now if you'll excuse me, MOMMMMMMM!!!!!! WHERE'S MY MEATLOAAAAAAAAAFFFF??!?!?!?!?!?!