Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

what are the worst MVP selections ever?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    I like Williams and give the edge to him, but Dimaggio can't be a terrible selection with 9.4 WAR or whatever stats you use-he's better than most MVPs and given that a replacement player is worth about 3 wins, he'd have produced about 12.4 "measured" wins to Williams' 14.3 which may be within the margin of error. Pick someone with fewer than half he WAR of the winner. Dawson had 2.7 WAR for a last place team in a year when 9 guys had 6.5 or more and 2 had 8+

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
      I don't agree about 1941. I think DiMaggio deserved it over Williams. DiMaggio was more valuable to his team than Williams was.
      How so?

      Williams had a superior season. That is how I define most valuable, the one with the most value. It is not Williams' fault he played on an inferior team. Williams was worth more to the Red Sox, his teammates just did not pick up the slack. Joe D does not deserve to win based on having superior teammates. Baseball is not basketball, there is far less symbiosis.

      I will agree that it was not nearly as bad as 1947. I'm surprised I don't see that one mentioned more.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by dl4060 View Post
        How so?

        Williams had a superior season. That is how I define most valuable, the one with the most value. It is not Williams' fault he played on an inferior team. Williams was worth more to the Red Sox, his teammates just did not pick up the slack. Joe D does not deserve to win based on having superior teammates. Baseball is not basketball, there is far less symbiosis.

        I will agree that it was not nearly as bad as 1947. I'm surprised I don't see that one mentioned more.
        Check out the Yankees record when DiMaggio's hit streak began and their record when the hit streak ended. The hit streak was a large part of the turn-around. I don't agree that Williams had a superior season to DiMaggio. I think DiMaggio had a better season and was more valuable to his team in 1941.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
          Check out the Yankees record when DiMaggio's hit streak began and their record when the hit streak ended. The hit streak was a large part of the turn-around. I don't agree that Williams had a superior season to DiMaggio. I think DiMaggio had a better season and was more valuable to his team in 1941.
          I'm not a huge fan of WAR, but Williams had 120% of Joe D's WAR that year. He beat him by 50 points of ops+, which might be some sort of record, at least post-Ruth. I don't see how defense can account for such a massive disparity.

          I think win shares has them even, and if WAR agreed it might give me something to think about, but 1.9 WAR is pretty significant.

          I would like to see their numbers during the streak. My guess is that Williams out hit Joe during the streak, but I don't care enough to look it up.

          What analysis leads you to think Joe had a superior season?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by dl4060 View Post
            I'm not a huge fan of WAR, but Williams had 120% of Joe D's WAR that year. He beat him by 50 points of ops+, which might be some sort of record, at least post-Ruth. I don't see how defense can account for such a massive disparity.

            I think win shares has them even, and if WAR agreed it might give me something to think about, but 1.9 WAR is pretty significant.

            I would like to see their numbers during the streak. My guess is that Williams out hit Joe during the streak, but I don't care enough to look it up.

            What analysis leads you to think Joe had a superior season?
            WAR, Win Shares and OPS+ mean very little to me. I think Joe DiMaggio was more valuable to his team than Ted Williams was in 1941. The Yankees were spinning their wheels when the streak started and were well in first when it ended.

            Comment


            • #81
              I think either Williams or Dimaggio would have been a fine choice..their seasons are nearly identical in value. You have to remember a few things:

              1) Dimaggio was better defensively, and also played a more important defensive position.

              2)Williams had a pretty big home/road split, and so did Dimaggio. If we take their road numbers, it is a lot closer, but Williams still has an edge. (1,228 OPS compared to 1.123). I imagine a lot of managers would prefer a great fielding center fielder who can put up a 1.123 OPS as compared to a poor fielding left fielder who has a 1.228 OPS,.

              3) More importantly, Williams' OPS+ is a LOT more walk heavy (147 walks compared to only 76 for Dimaggio). A stat I like to use in situations like this (when the players are playing during the same season, thus similar run scoring environment) is runs produced (runs+RBI- HR) per plate appearance. This effectively gives the walks their proper value, since walks almost never result in RBI, and yet often lead to a run. Williams had 606 PA and produced 218 runs, while Joe D had 622 PA and produced 215 runs. Again, Ted has the advantage, but it is pretty thin.
              Last edited by willshad; 04-07-2012, 12:12 AM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by dl4060 View Post
                I'm not a huge fan of WAR, but Williams had 120% of Joe D's WAR that year. He beat him by 50 points of ops+, which might be some sort of record, at least post-Ruth. I don't see how defense can account for such a massive disparity.

                I think win shares has them even, and if WAR agreed it might give me something to think about, but 1.9 WAR is pretty significant.

                I would like to see their numbers during the streak. My guess is that Williams out hit Joe during the streak, but I don't care enough to look it up.

                What analysis leads you to think Joe had a superior season?
                1.9 WAR is quite a lot but still 9.4 WAR is a great season. williams should probably have won it but if we are talking about the worst MVP choice there are a lot worse choices.
                also don't forget that there is not only the defensive gap but also the positional gap. Williams was a LF and dimaggio a CF which is a premium position. on top of this dimaggio was a historical defender while williams was mediocre at best.

                still his season was better but a lot closer than the OPS+ gap indicates.
                I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

                Comment


                • #83
                  In 1941, there was no WAR except WWII, no OPS+, and no win shares. To use stats that didn't exist at the time is pointless
                  in these kind of discussions. The voters didn't have that information.
                  Last edited by ol' aches and pains; 04-07-2012, 04:38 AM.
                  Shalom, y'all!
                  What's the rumpus?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I think the choice of Hank Sauer, a .270 hitter with 37 homers and an excellent 121 RBI's for the Cubs in 1952 was a mistake.

                    How about Robin Roberts, 28-7 for the Phillies, with 30 complete games and even 2 Saves , instead? The Phils even finished 10 games ahead of the Cubs in the standings.

                    There was no Cy Young Award in those days, as sort of a "pitcher's MVP" substitute, for the information of you younger folks. Sauer had a fine season, but Roberts' season was superb!
                    Last edited by THE OX; 04-07-2012, 07:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      2008 NL MVP.

                      Pujols won it on a team that was 4th in the NL Central- not as good a statistical season as 2009.
                      "It's time to play America's favorite game- Name That Molina."

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I remember seeing the 1941 stats 25 years ago. I thought that even then, Williams was absolutely robbed. I thought, "How can a .400+ hitter who also led the league in HRs and runs scored not get the award?" I just couldn't see how a guy that outhomers another by 23% despite 85 fewer at bats AND that same guy who outhit Dimaggio by nearly 50 points still loses the MVP. I also added up now many times each man reach base safely(hits+walks) and I believe Williams EDGE out Dimaggio by about 80! I also remember reading that Williams batting average for the whole season was only 2 pts lower than Dimaggio's avg was during that famous streak. What's ironic is that Williams would get even more screwed over in later years. Joe Gordon's MVP victory over Williams was laughable. The MVP award was really a joke until the 1960s or so. I bet that if the MVP award had the same format as today, then Ruth WOULD NOT have won in 1919 or 1920. After all, his teams didn't win the pennant. Heck, Ruth probably wouldn't have made the top 5 in 1919. After all, his team was horrible that year. And we know that the reason why is that Ruth played terribly in 1919(according to those silly writers).

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          While I personally think Williams was robbed, I understand the MVP voting in 1941 I think. I don't think people now look at it from the perspective of the times. Williams hit .400, yes, and it was the last time that's happened. No mean feat. Only four people (including Williams again) have even come within 20 points of that since. But while .400 was pretty awesome even at the time, I don't think it had quite the impact it has today. In the 20 years before 1941, there had been eight .400 seasons and nine (I think) other .390+ seasons. That's a whole bunch of people hitting in pretty much the same neighborhood as Williams, and a couple that outhit him by nearly 20 points.

                          Do you guys know that photo of Williams and Hugh Duffy from 1940? Here's the link:

                          http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-ph...ith-hugh-duffy

                          Duffy was a coach for the Sox. Today we may think of 1894 as ancient history and not modern ball, but Williams (and everybody else) had a guy still there who had hit .440. I mean, I suppose if no one tops 50 homers, or even 45, for the next 70 years, Bautista's 2010 might begin to loom in significance, even though there were many 50 homer seasons in the two decades before it.

                          DiMaggio on the other hand, completely shattered a record- and a popular record- that had stood for close to 50 years. Amd he was Joe DiMaggio of the Yankees. While I don't agree with the selection, I can completely see how it was made.
                          "Here's a crazy thought I've always had: if they cut three fingers off each hand, I'd really be a great hitter because then I could level off better." Paul Waner (lifetime .333 hitter, 3,152 lifetime hits.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Cool photo and good points.
                            "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              A hitting steak is truly meaningless, in my opinion. Technically, someone could go 1/4 or 1/5 with a single and no walks each game and hit in 162 straight games. I'm truly not impressed all that much with the streak. The school of thought that I had when I played was very simple: reaching base as often as possible and HRs(when I played, I never looked at slugging%). I.e, the #1 goal I thought was to reach base since not many people hit HRs. The next area of importance is hitting HRs. Again, this is an old school thought by a mediocre baseball player. But it makes sense to some sense. Had Dimaggio put up Ruth's 1923 numbers, then I'd understand the selection. Ruth in 1923 hit.393, reached base 54%, and hit 41 HRs. Williams, .406, reached base 55%, and hit 37 HRs. Williams' .406 avg looks better, but Ruth's HRs are higher. Using an old school of thought, they look similar. Williams had an OB% pf 30+% higher than Dimaggio's and his HRs were 23% higher, they are not even in the same league. And .400 was done only once in the 1930s. And a .400+ hitter that also smashed 30+ HRs? Only 1 other man in history(Hornsby) did that. Actually, I don't even know if any other .400+ hitter managed more than 20 HRs.
                              Last edited by pheasant; 04-10-2012, 09:30 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by pheasant View Post
                                A hitting steak is truly meaningless, in my opinion. Technically, someone could go 1/4 or 1/5 with a single and no walks each game and hit in 162 straight games. I'm truly not impressed all that much with the streak. The school of thought that I had when I played was very simple: reaching base as often as possible and HRs(when I played, I never looked at slugging%). I.e, the #1 goal I thought was to reach base since not many people hit HRs. The next area of importance is hitting HRs. Again, this is an old school thought by a mediocre baseball player. But it makes sense to some sense. Had Dimaggio put up Ruth's 1923 numbers, then I'd understand the selection. Ruth in 1923 hit.393, reached base 54%, and hit 41 HRs. Williams, .406, reached base 55%, and hit 37 HRs. Williams' .406 avg looks better, but Ruth's HRs are higher. Using an old school of thought, they look similar. Williams had an OB% pf 30+% higher than Dimaggio's and his HRs were 23% higher, they are not even in the same league. And .400 was done only once in the 1930s. And a .400+ hitter that also smashed 30+ HRs? Only 1 other man in history(Hornsby) did that. Actually, I don't even know if any other .400+ hitter managed more than 20 HRs.
                                Only 5 guys have ever had a 40+ game hit streak in 141 years. It's a pretty epic feat - 56. I agree Williams had the better statistical year. I would like to see the other Yankee players stats during the streak, I doubt any of them were more responsible than DiMaggio, but it isn't out of the realm of possibility.
                                "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X