Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series
-
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@the_dragon1912 said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
Stargell won MVP in 1979 with a 2.7 fWAR season.
That’s gotta be one of the worst (possibly the worst actually) screw-ups in voting from back then. Dave Winfield had 7.8 fWAR, with a wRC+ that’s almost 30 points higher. Just absolutely brutal how bad some people got screwed over back then.None of those stats existed back then. And the biggest screw up in voting history is the 2016 AL Cy young award
Obviously, that’s my point. Guys got screwed over because voting was based heavily on popularity and team record, with the main stats being AVG, HR, and worst of all, RBI.
Yeah Verlander probably should’ve won in 2016, but Porcello’s numbers actually weren’t that bad.
Verlander: 3.04 ERA, 140 ERA+, 3.48 FIP, 1.001 WHIP, 6.8 H9, 1.2 HR9, 2.3 BB9, 10.0 SO9, 4.46 SO/W
Porcello: 3.15 ERA, 142 ERA+, 3.40 FIP, 1.009 WHIP, 7.8 H9, 0.9 HR9, 1.3 BB9, 7.6 SO9, 5.91 SO/WI’d say a guy with 2.7 fWAR winning MVP over a guy with 7.8 (or even just winning MVP at all) is much worse.
Verlander is the only player in history to have more first place votes and lose the CY young. And he had 6 more first place votes. Two AL east writers left Verlander off their ballots completely. Two 5th place votes and Verlander wins. Kluber and Britton would have been better choices than Porcello. Porcello's numbers were good, but he won the award because of two writers and having a 22-4 record thanks to one of the highest run supports in league history.
I agree Stargell didn't deserve the MVP, but at least advanced stats weren't used back then. There were all the stats and Metrics in the world in 2016 and it was still the blatantly wrong choice
-
@the_dragon1912 said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@the_dragon1912 said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
Stargell won MVP in 1979 with a 2.7 fWAR season.
That’s gotta be one of the worst (possibly the worst actually) screw-ups in voting from back then. Dave Winfield had 7.8 fWAR, with a wRC+ that’s almost 30 points higher. Just absolutely brutal how bad some people got screwed over back then.None of those stats existed back then. And the biggest screw up in voting history is the 2016 AL Cy young award
Obviously, that’s my point. Guys got screwed over because voting was based heavily on popularity and team record, with the main stats being AVG, HR, and worst of all, RBI.
Yeah Verlander probably should’ve won in 2016, but Porcello’s numbers actually weren’t that bad.
Verlander: 3.04 ERA, 140 ERA+, 3.48 FIP, 1.001 WHIP, 6.8 H9, 1.2 HR9, 2.3 BB9, 10.0 SO9, 4.46 SO/W
Porcello: 3.15 ERA, 142 ERA+, 3.40 FIP, 1.009 WHIP, 7.8 H9, 0.9 HR9, 1.3 BB9, 7.6 SO9, 5.91 SO/WI’d say a guy with 2.7 fWAR winning MVP over a guy with 7.8 (or even just winning MVP at all) is much worse.
Verlander is the only player in history to have more first place votes and lose the CY young. And he had 6 more first place votes. Two AL east writers left Verlander off their ballots completely. Two 5th place votes and Verlander wins. Kluber and Britton would have been better choices than Porcello. Porcello's numbers were good, but he won the award because of two writers and having a 22-4 record thanks to one of the highest run supports in league history.
I agree Stargell didn't deserve the MVP, but at least advanced stats weren't used back then. There were all the stats and Metrics in the world in 2016 and it was still the blatantly wrong choice
Personally, I think the winner should’ve been Britton, followed by Verlander, kluber, and porcello. The numbers between Verlander, kluber, and porcello were all extremely close though, so I really don’t think it’s fair to say it’s the worst voting incident when guys have won MVP while being considerably worse than the leader.
-
Don't forget the Philadelphia screw job that was 2006, Ryan Howard beating Albert Pujols.
I'm not saying this was as big a travesty, Howard had a monster season but Albert's 8.4 war was almost 3 points higher, his SLG %, BA, OBP, OPS, runs all higher.
Also, didn't Pops share the NL MVP with Keith Hernandez?
I agree on both accounts. Winfield should have won and Verlander should have won. No question on either.
-
@cdnmoneymaker93_xbl said
Going to disagree, only because when you use Prime cards, you're locked into the vintage card art which, for most players, is downright awful.
That example is a particularly bad picture, but there are plenty of good looking cards from back in the day to choose from. It would be nice to see some variety rather than seeing an awards or milestone card 75% of the time.
Also, reading about how Porcello won the Cy Young is just upsetting.
-
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@the_dragon1912 said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@the_dragon1912 said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
Stargell won MVP in 1979 with a 2.7 fWAR season.
That’s gotta be one of the worst (possibly the worst actually) screw-ups in voting from back then. Dave Winfield had 7.8 fWAR, with a wRC+ that’s almost 30 points higher. Just absolutely brutal how bad some people got screwed over back then.None of those stats existed back then. And the biggest screw up in voting history is the 2016 AL Cy young award
Obviously, that’s my point. Guys got screwed over because voting was based heavily on popularity and team record, with the main stats being AVG, HR, and worst of all, RBI.
Yeah Verlander probably should’ve won in 2016, but Porcello’s numbers actually weren’t that bad.
Verlander: 3.04 ERA, 140 ERA+, 3.48 FIP, 1.001 WHIP, 6.8 H9, 1.2 HR9, 2.3 BB9, 10.0 SO9, 4.46 SO/W
Porcello: 3.15 ERA, 142 ERA+, 3.40 FIP, 1.009 WHIP, 7.8 H9, 0.9 HR9, 1.3 BB9, 7.6 SO9, 5.91 SO/WI’d say a guy with 2.7 fWAR winning MVP over a guy with 7.8 (or even just winning MVP at all) is much worse.
Verlander is the only player in history to have more first place votes and lose the CY young. And he had 6 more first place votes. Two AL east writers left Verlander off their ballots completely. Two 5th place votes and Verlander wins. Kluber and Britton would have been better choices than Porcello. Porcello's numbers were good, but he won the award because of two writers and having a 22-4 record thanks to one of the highest run supports in league history.
I agree Stargell didn't deserve the MVP, but at least advanced stats weren't used back then. There were all the stats and Metrics in the world in 2016 and it was still the blatantly wrong choice
Dupe
-
@savefarris_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@danielfeces_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
Bottom line: SDS, give us more prime cards
Going to disagree, only because when you use Prime cards, you're locked into the vintage card art which, for most players, is downright awful.
Which looks better in your lineup?
... or ...
i love the old cards how they look
-
RIB Possible Prime or other cards
Kirby Pucket
Tony Perez
Jeff Bagwell
Gagne
Killebrew
Andruw Jones
John Franco
Rod Carew
Will Clark
Robin Yount
Louis Aparicio
Troy Percival
Chris Sale
Tino Martinez
Houston Street
Richie Ashburn
Jack Morris
Don Sutton
Heath Bell -
@savefarris_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
Which looks better in your lineup?
I would give all my stubs for the Awards one. It's so pretty...
-
@the_dragon1912 said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
Stargell won MVP in 1979 with a 2.7 fWAR season.
That’s gotta be one of the worst (possibly the worst actually) screw-ups in voting from back then. Dave Winfield had 7.8 fWAR, with a wRC+ that’s almost 30 points higher. Just absolutely brutal how bad some people got screwed over back then.None of those stats existed back then. And the biggest screw up in voting history is the 2016 AL Cy young award
Check out the 1934 AL MVP. Imagine anyone voting Mickey Cochrane over Lou Gehrig today.
-
@poksey_mlbts said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@the_dragon1912 said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
Stargell won MVP in 1979 with a 2.7 fWAR season.
That’s gotta be one of the worst (possibly the worst actually) screw-ups in voting from back then. Dave Winfield had 7.8 fWAR, with a wRC+ that’s almost 30 points higher. Just absolutely brutal how bad some people got screwed over back then.None of those stats existed back then. And the biggest screw up in voting history is the 2016 AL Cy young award
Check out the 1934 AL MVP. Imagine anyone voting Mickey Cochrane over Lou Gehrig today.
Cochrane even getting the MVP over Charlie Gehringer that same year is asinine lmao. Gehrig is clearly the most deserving there, but Gehringer is at least acceptable
-
@the_dragon1912 said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@poksey_mlbts said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@the_dragon1912 said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
Stargell won MVP in 1979 with a 2.7 fWAR season.
That’s gotta be one of the worst (possibly the worst actually) screw-ups in voting from back then. Dave Winfield had 7.8 fWAR, with a wRC+ that’s almost 30 points higher. Just absolutely brutal how bad some people got screwed over back then.None of those stats existed back then. And the biggest screw up in voting history is the 2016 AL Cy young award
Check out the 1934 AL MVP. Imagine anyone voting Mickey Cochrane over Lou Gehrig today.
Cochrane even getting the MVP over Charlie Gehringer that same year is asinine lmao. Gehrig is clearly the most deserving there, but Gehringer is at least acceptable
I think a lot of the reasoning back then was because Cochrane was a Player/Manager, and they won the pennant. Looking at it now, it's completely laughable that he won the award, especially over what Gehrig did that season. He won it over Gehringer because he was the apparent leader on that Tigers team, but yeah, Gehringer shouldve been easily ahead of him too.
-
Pops Sig in 19 as sooooo good... A prime would’ve been nice too, his MVP was a career achievement award, it’s like Al Pacino winning an Oscar for Scent of a Woman and not The Godfather.. I was hoping for a good Pop to spot start and use as a bench bat, hopefully his sweet swing makes up for his stats.
-
@ericulous1_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
Don't forget the Philadelphia screw job that was 2006, Ryan Howard beating Albert Pujols.
I'm not saying this was as big a travesty, Howard had a monster season but Albert's 8.4 war was almost 3 points higher, his SLG %, BA, OBP, OPS, runs all higher.
Also, didn't Pops share the NL MVP with Keith Hernandez?
I agree on both accounts. Winfield should have won and Verlander should have won. No question on either.
I always thought 2006 was Alberts best season and he was injured for a few games too and still put insane numbers up. Howard was a monster that year, but overall Pujols was the best all around player.
-
The Willie Stargell card absolutely Rakes For me in moments
-
Hell be good vs righties, which is all that matters
Prime from the early 70s with an outfield as his primary would be sick
-
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@cdnmoneymaker93_xbl said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
Stargell won MVP in 1979 with a 2.7 fWAR season.
That’s gotta be one of the worst (possibly the worst actually) screw-ups in voting from back then. Dave Winfield had 7.8 fWAR, with a wRC+ that’s almost 30 points higher. Just absolutely brutal how bad some people got screwed over back then.A prime Stargell card based on like 71-74 would’ve made so much more sense, and would be way more useful for collections.
These stats didn't exist then!!!!!
Thank you for pointing out the very obvious thing that everybody knows. I didn’t say they should’ve used them back then, I’m just pointing out how hilariously bad the voting looks now with modern knowledge.
Even if you look at stats that they had back then, Stargell winning MVP over Winfield was still clearly just based on popularity and team record.
Stargell: 32 HR, 82 RBI, .281 AVG, .352 OBP, .552 SLG
Winfield: 34 HR, 118 RBI, .308 AVG, .395 OBP, .558 SLGThere has been an argument for quite a while about MVPs. The argument in this case being how valuable was Winfield to a Padres team who finished 22 games back. At best his value to the team that year was that he kept them out of last place.
Stargell, on the other hand played a big part of the Pirates winning the division. His 2.7 fWAR was enough to push them to the top of the division since they only won it by 2 games over Montreal.
I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the above logic but I understand it. These days I think MVP is just kind of synonymous with best performing player in the league but it hasn't always been that cut and dried.
-
@dolenz_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@cdnmoneymaker93_xbl said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
@jogger171717_psn said in Willie Stargell MVP/ Lack of Prime series:
Stargell won MVP in 1979 with a 2.7 fWAR season.
That’s gotta be one of the worst (possibly the worst actually) screw-ups in voting from back then. Dave Winfield had 7.8 fWAR, with a wRC+ that’s almost 30 points higher. Just absolutely brutal how bad some people got screwed over back then.A prime Stargell card based on like 71-74 would’ve made so much more sense, and would be way more useful for collections.
These stats didn't exist then!!!!!
Thank you for pointing out the very obvious thing that everybody knows. I didn’t say they should’ve used them back then, I’m just pointing out how hilariously bad the voting looks now with modern knowledge.
Even if you look at stats that they had back then, Stargell winning MVP over Winfield was still clearly just based on popularity and team record.
Stargell: 32 HR, 82 RBI, .281 AVG, .352 OBP, .552 SLG
Winfield: 34 HR, 118 RBI, .308 AVG, .395 OBP, .558 SLGThere has been an argument for quite a while about MVPs. The argument in this case being how valuable was Winfield to a Padres team who finished 22 games back. At best his value to the team that year was that he kept them out of last place.
Stargell, on the other hand played a big part of the Pirates winning the division. His 2.7 fWAR was enough to push them to the top of the division since they only won it by 2 games over Montreal.
I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the above logic but I understand it. These days I think MVP is just kind of synonymous with best performing player in the league but it hasn't always been that cut and dried.
I understand that, and I think it’s for the best that most voters don’t think that way anymore. Imagine if trout never won MVP no matter how good he played because of factors totally out of his control?
As for Stargell contributing to the pirates, Dave Parker had over double his fWAR while also having a higher wRC+. If anybody should’ve won MVP for helping the pirates win the division, it should’ve been him. He contributed much more than Stargell did and was more important to the team’s success, so that argument doesn’t really hold much weight.
-
A admin locked this topic on
