Who are the AL/NL MVPs so far in 2010

[UMich92]

It's rare, but closers have won the MVP. Eckersley won in 1992 and Willie Hernandez won in 1984.

Alex

 

[leatherman]

It's rare, but closers have won the MVP. Eckersley won in 1992 and Willie Hernandez won in 1984.

Alex

Don't forget Rollie Fingers in 1981!

 

[Huffamaniac]

Eck won it in 1992!

If you are 5th or 6th like Davis and Eck have been that makes you a legitimate candidate.

Eck in 1989 gained 3 first place votes. He was a serious contender

That is not true. I know for a fact Mark Davis was 6th in the MVP voting in 1989 when he won the CY Young. I am pretty sure Rivera has gained plenty of votes over the years also.

[quote="Jays_Cards":11466ym3]

Dodgers are below .500 and would not make the playoffs if they started today. Many people do not vote for someone whose team is not in the playoffs which is one of the reasons Ethier is not running away with this.

anyone who selects someone besides Ethier for the NL MVP at this point is a complete moron.

...And people NEVER vote for closers. While Soriano has definitely solidified the back end of the Rays pen, he is not in the top 3 most valuable players on his own team.

Finishing 6th and being a legitimate MVP candidate are two drastically different things. How many players on bad teams have won the MVP versus closers winning the MVP?[/quote:11466ym3]

 

[Huffamaniac]

Thanks!

It's rare, but closers have won the MVP. Eckersley won in 1992 and Willie Hernandez won in 1984.

Alex

 

[sportscardtheory]

"So far" in the league, he is not the MVP or even in the top-five. The poll isn't "Who will win the MVP Award".

I take the subject to mean this: If the season ended today, who would you vote for MVP?

Using those parameters, it wouldn't be a pitcher. The last pitcher to finish in the top 5 for MVP voting, in any league, was Pedro Martinez in 2000 (he finished 5th). In 2006, while still pitching in the AL, Johan Santana led all of MLB in wins, ERA, and strikeouts. He finished 7th in AL MVP voting, so clearly the MVP voters prefer hitters.

In my opinion, to have 3 pitchers on the poll for NL MVP, and not Pujols (who is clearly the Cardinal's best hitter this year on a first place team), is a mistake. By the way, Pujols has yet to make an error this year in the field.

I stand by my argument: So far in 2010, Pujols is in the top 5 of NL MVP candidates. You can disagree, of course. After all, it is your post and your poll.

David

I think that Halladay and Jimenez are more important to their teams so far this season than Pujols. You could argue that Lincecum could be replaced by Werth and maybe Pujols, but I think Werth is even more valuable to his team this season than Albert, and he didn't even make my top-five.

 

[All The Hype]

"So far" in the league, he is not the MVP or even in the top-five. The poll isn't "Who will win the MVP Award".

I take the subject to mean this: If the season ended today, who would you vote for MVP?

Using those parameters, it wouldn't be a pitcher. The last pitcher to finish in the top 5 for MVP voting, in any league, was Pedro Martinez in 2000 (he finished 5th). In 2006, while still pitching in the AL, Johan Santana led all of MLB in wins, ERA, and strikeouts. He finished 7th in AL MVP voting, so clearly the MVP voters prefer hitters.

In my opinion, to have 3 pitchers on the poll for NL MVP, and not Pujols (who is clearly the Cardinal's best hitter this year on a first place team), is a mistake. By the way, Pujols has yet to make an error this year in the field.

I stand by my argument: So far in 2010, Pujols is in the top 5 of NL MVP candidates. You can disagree, of course. After all, it is your post and your poll.

David

Agree 100%.

You have five pitchers listed for the NL. It's the MVP, not the Cy Young. As David has pointed out, pitchers hardly get consideration for MVP anymore.

Furthermore, to say that .320/35/120 would not be an "MVP" season, and not even make the top five, is a complete joke to me.

 

[Wes]

"So far" in the league, he is not the MVP or even in the top-five. The poll isn't "Who will win the MVP Award".

I take the subject to mean this: If the season ended today, who would you vote for MVP?

Using those parameters, it wouldn't be a pitcher. The last pitcher to finish in the top 5 for MVP voting, in any league, was Pedro Martinez in 2000 (he finished 5th). In 2006, while still pitching in the AL, Johan Santana led all of MLB in wins, ERA, and strikeouts. He finished 7th in AL MVP voting, so clearly the MVP voters prefer hitters.

In my opinion, to have 3 pitchers on the poll for NL MVP, and not Pujols (who is clearly the Cardinal's best hitter this year on a first place team), is a mistake. By the way, Pujols has yet to make an error this year in the field.

I stand by my argument: So far in 2010, Pujols is in the top 5 of NL MVP candidates. You can disagree, of course. After all, it is your post and your poll.

David

I think that Halladay and Jimenez are more important to their teams so far this season than Pujols. You could argue that Lincecum could be replaced by Werth and maybe Pujols, but I think Werth is even more valuable to his team this season than Albert, and he didn't even make my top-five.

I want to see the argument that Halladay has pitched better than Lincecum this year. Lincecum has left every start with a lead and is still undefeated. Halladay has a loss and worse peripheral numbers.

 

[sportscardtheory]

"So far" in the league, he is not the MVP or even in the top-five. The poll isn't "Who will win the MVP Award".

I take the subject to mean this: If the season ended today, who would you vote for MVP?

Using those parameters, it wouldn't be a pitcher. The last pitcher to finish in the top 5 for MVP voting, in any league, was Pedro Martinez in 2000 (he finished 5th). In 2006, while still pitching in the AL, Johan Santana led all of MLB in wins, ERA, and strikeouts. He finished 7th in AL MVP voting, so clearly the MVP voters prefer hitters.

In my opinion, to have 3 pitchers on the poll for NL MVP, and not Pujols (who is clearly the Cardinal's best hitter this year on a first place team), is a mistake. By the way, Pujols has yet to make an error this year in the field.

I stand by my argument: So far in 2010, Pujols is in the top 5 of NL MVP candidates. You can disagree, of course. After all, it is your post and your poll.

David

Agree 100%.

You have five pitchers listed for the NL. It's the MVP, not the Cy Young. As David has pointed out, pitchers hardly get consideration for MVP anymore.

Furthermore, to say that .320/35/120 would not be an "MVP" season, and not even make the top five, is a complete joke to me.

So far, not many hitters in the N.L. are sticking out of the crowd as of right now. Certainly things can/will change, but right now, no one besides Ethier, Braun and Werth even caught my eye for N.L. hitters.

 

[sportscardtheory]

"So far" in the league, he is not the MVP or even in the top-five. The poll isn't "Who will win the MVP Award".

I take the subject to mean this: If the season ended today, who would you vote for MVP?

Using those parameters, it wouldn't be a pitcher. The last pitcher to finish in the top 5 for MVP voting, in any league, was Pedro Martinez in 2000 (he finished 5th). In 2006, while still pitching in the AL, Johan Santana led all of MLB in wins, ERA, and strikeouts. He finished 7th in AL MVP voting, so clearly the MVP voters prefer hitters.

In my opinion, to have 3 pitchers on the poll for NL MVP, and not Pujols (who is clearly the Cardinal's best hitter this year on a first place team), is a mistake. By the way, Pujols has yet to make an error this year in the field.

I stand by my argument: So far in 2010, Pujols is in the top 5 of NL MVP candidates. You can disagree, of course. After all, it is your post and your poll.

David

I think that Halladay and Jimenez are more important to their teams so far this season than Pujols. You could argue that Lincecum could be replaced by Werth and maybe Pujols, but I think Werth is even more valuable to his team this season than Albert, and he didn't even make my top-five.

I want to see the argument that Halladay has pitched better than Lincecum this year. Lincecum has left every start with a lead and is still undefeated. Halladay has a loss and worse peripheral numbers.

Halladay has two more wins, a .41 lower ERA and his team is in first place.

 

[leatherman]

I want to see the argument that Halladay has pitched better than Lincecum this year. Lincecum has left every start with a lead and is still undefeated. Halladay has a loss and worse peripheral numbers.

I'm not going to argue that Halladay is a better pitcher than Lincecum this year, but the one argument that could be made for Roy being more VALUABLE than Timmy is that, when Roy pitches, the bullpen knows they pretty much have the night off. He has averaged 8 innings per start this year, compared to 7 innings per start for Lincecum. Being able to give an extra relief pitcher an extra day of rest means a lot to the team.

 

[Wes]

"So far" in the league, he is not the MVP or even in the top-five. The poll isn't "Who will win the MVP Award".

I take the subject to mean this: If the season ended today, who would you vote for MVP?

Using those parameters, it wouldn't be a pitcher. The last pitcher to finish in the top 5 for MVP voting, in any league, was Pedro Martinez in 2000 (he finished 5th). In 2006, while still pitching in the AL, Johan Santana led all of MLB in wins, ERA, and strikeouts. He finished 7th in AL MVP voting, so clearly the MVP voters prefer hitters.

In my opinion, to have 3 pitchers on the poll for NL MVP, and not Pujols (who is clearly the Cardinal's best hitter this year on a first place team), is a mistake. By the way, Pujols has yet to make an error this year in the field.

I stand by my argument: So far in 2010, Pujols is in the top 5 of NL MVP candidates. You can disagree, of course. After all, it is your post and your poll.

David

I think that Halladay and Jimenez are more important to their teams so far this season than Pujols. You could argue that Lincecum could be replaced by Werth and maybe Pujols, but I think Werth is even more valuable to his team this season than Albert, and he didn't even make my top-five.

I want to see the argument that Halladay has pitched better than Lincecum this year. Lincecum has left every start with a lead and is still undefeated. Halladay has a loss and worse peripheral numbers.

Halladay has two more wins, a .41 lower ERA and his team is in first place.

If Lincecum was 7-0 would you change your vote?

If so, realize that wins are not a reasonable way to compare pitchers. Lincecum's pen has blown 3 of his wins. If Halladay's did the same his record would be worse. Neither has any control over that and it should not be a factor in comparing performance.

 

[sportscardtheory]

[quote="sportscardtheory":3xpavghd]
"So far" in the league, he is not the MVP or even in the top-five. The poll isn't "Who will win the MVP Award".

I take the subject to mean this: If the season ended today, who would you vote for MVP?

Using those parameters, it wouldn't be a pitcher. The last pitcher to finish in the top 5 for MVP voting, in any league, was Pedro Martinez in 2000 (he finished 5th). In 2006, while still pitching in the AL, Johan Santana led all of MLB in wins, ERA, and strikeouts. He finished 7th in AL MVP voting, so clearly the MVP voters prefer hitters.

In my opinion, to have 3 pitchers on the poll for NL MVP, and not Pujols (who is clearly the Cardinal's best hitter this year on a first place team), is a mistake. By the way, Pujols has yet to make an error this year in the field.

I stand by my argument: So far in 2010, Pujols is in the top 5 of NL MVP candidates. You can disagree, of course. After all, it is your post and your poll.

David

I think that Halladay and Jimenez are more important to their teams so far this season than Pujols. You could argue that Lincecum could be replaced by Werth and maybe Pujols, but I think Werth is even more valuable to his team this season than Albert, and he didn't even make my top-five.

I want to see the argument that Halladay has pitched better than Lincecum this year. Lincecum has left every start with a lead and is still undefeated. Halladay has a loss and worse peripheral numbers.

Halladay has two more wins, a .41 lower ERA and his team is in first place.

If Lincecum was 7-0 would you change your vote?

If so, realize that wins are not a reasonable way to compare pitchers. Lincecum's pen has blown 3 of his wins. If Halladay's did the same his record would be worse. Neither has any control over that and it should not be a factor in comparing performance.[/quote:3xpavghd]

If he had 3 more wins the Giants would be in first place instead of 2nd, so yes I would change my vote.

 

[fengzhang]

Dodgers are below .500 and would not make the playoffs if they started today. Many people do not vote for someone whose team is not in the playoffs which is one of the reasons Ethier is not running away with this.

anyone who selects someone besides Ethier for the NL MVP at this point is a complete moron.

Yes, but if your stats are good enough, you can still win the MVP and win by a lot if your stats are good enough (just ask Bonds in 2001). So, far Ethier is leading in the triple crown categories and batting .390 (30 points higher than anyone else in the NL). That's good enough for MVP at this point.

 

[numba1yankeefan]

and, umm...anyone want to check out casey mcgehee's numbers? wont win but should get votes if he continues what he's doing

 

[vetsgt02]

Dodgers are below .500 and would not make the playoffs if they started today. Many people do not vote for someone whose team is not in the playoffs which is one of the reasons Ethier is not running away with this.

anyone who selects someone besides Ethier for the NL MVP at this point is a complete moron.

Yes, but if your stats are good enough, you can still win the MVP and win by a lot if your stats are good enough (just ask Bonds in 2001). So, far Ethier is leading in the triple crown categories and batting .390 (30 points higher than anyone else in the NL). That's good enough for MVP at this point.

Ethier is on pace for:
40 HR's
136 RBI's
90 Runs
.362 average

That is a monster season and I think he can get those and then some. Alot of his stats he got without the protection on Manny in the line-up and starting the season hurt

 

[Wes]

Dodgers are below .500 and would not make the playoffs if they started today. Many people do not vote for someone whose team is not in the playoffs which is one of the reasons Ethier is not running away with this.

anyone who selects someone besides Ethier for the NL MVP at this point is a complete moron.

Yes, but if your stats are good enough, you can still win the MVP and win by a lot if your stats are good enough (just ask Bonds in 2001). So, far Ethier is leading in the triple crown categories and batting .390 (30 points higher than anyone else in the NL). That's good enough for MVP at this point.

Ethier is on pace for:
40 HR's
136 RBI's
90 Runs
.362 average

That is a monster season and I think he can get those and then some. Alot of his stats he got without the protection on Manny in the line-up and starting the season hurt

I'm not sure where you're looking at pace but he's on pace to hit .390 with 52 bombs and 181 RBI.

 

[vetsgt02]

Dodgers are below .500 and would not make the playoffs if they started today. Many people do not vote for someone whose team is not in the playoffs which is one of the reasons Ethier is not running away with this.

anyone who selects someone besides Ethier for the NL MVP at this point is a complete moron.

Yes, but if your stats are good enough, you can still win the MVP and win by a lot if your stats are good enough (just ask Bonds in 2001). So, far Ethier is leading in the triple crown categories and batting .390 (30 points higher than anyone else in the NL). That's good enough for MVP at this point.

Ethier is on pace for:
40 HR's
136 RBI's
90 Runs
.362 average

That is a monster season and I think he can get those and then some. Alot of his stats he got without the protection on Manny in the line-up and starting the season hurt

I'm not sure where you're looking at pace but he's on pace to hit .390 with 52 bombs and 181 RBI.

I just took what he has done so far and timesed it by 3.9. there are 129 games left and 33 played so I divided that got 3.9 and times everything by that to get a rough number. Probably the hard way to do it but it is the only way I know

 

[Wes]

Dodgers are below .500 and would not make the playoffs if they started today. Many people do not vote for someone whose team is not in the playoffs which is one of the reasons Ethier is not running away with this.

[quote="vetsgt02":3shla2zs]anyone who selects someone besides Ethier for the NL MVP at this point is a complete moron.

Yes, but if your stats are good enough, you can still win the MVP and win by a lot if your stats are good enough (just ask Bonds in 2001). So, far Ethier is leading in the triple crown categories and batting .390 (30 points higher than anyone else in the NL). That's good enough for MVP at this point.

Ethier is on pace for:
40 HR's
136 RBI's
90 Runs
.362 average

That is a monster season and I think he can get those and then some. Alot of his stats he got without the protection on Manny in the line-up and starting the season hurt

I'm not sure where you're looking at pace but he's on pace to hit .390 with 52 bombs and 181 RBI.

I just took what he has done so far and timesed it by 3.9. there are 129 games left and 33 played so I divided that got 3.9 and times everything by that to get a rough number. Probably the hard way to do it but it is the only way I know [/quote:3shla2zs]

You may want to look at your math - why would his batting average go down? ESPN shows projected stats so that can save you a lot of time.

 

[vetsgt02]

[quote="Huffamaniac":347bmkho]Dodgers are below .500 and would not make the playoffs if they started today. Many people do not vote for someone whose team is not in the playoffs which is one of the reasons Ethier is not running away with this.

[quote="vetsgt02":347bmkho]anyone who selects someone besides Ethier for the NL MVP at this point is a complete moron.

Yes, but if your stats are good enough, you can still win the MVP and win by a lot if your stats are good enough (just ask Bonds in 2001). So, far Ethier is leading in the triple crown categories and batting .390 (30 points higher than anyone else in the NL). That's good enough for MVP at this point.

Ethier is on pace for:
40 HR's
136 RBI's
90 Runs
.362 average

That is a monster season and I think he can get those and then some. Alot of his stats he got without the protection on Manny in the line-up and starting the season hurt

I'm not sure where you're looking at pace but he's on pace to hit .390 with 52 bombs and 181 RBI.

I just took what he has done so far and timesed it by 3.9. there are 129 games left and 33 played so I divided that got 3.9 and times everything by that to get a rough number. Probably the hard way to do it but it is the only way I know [/quote:347bmkho]

You may want to look at your math - why would his batting average go down? ESPN shows projected stats so that can save you a lot of time.[/quote:347bmkho]

I brought his average down myself because no way he finish the season batting .390

 

[Sly]

"So far" in the league, he is not the MVP or even in the top-five. The poll isn't "Who will win the MVP Award".

I take the subject to mean this: If the season ended today, who would you vote for MVP?

Using those parameters, it wouldn't be a pitcher. The last pitcher to finish in the top 5 for MVP voting, in any league, was Pedro Martinez in 2000 (he finished 5th). In 2006, while still pitching in the AL, Johan Santana led all of MLB in wins, ERA, and strikeouts. He finished 7th in AL MVP voting, so clearly the MVP voters prefer hitters.

In my opinion, to have 3 pitchers on the poll for NL MVP, and not Pujols (who is clearly the Cardinal's best hitter this year on a first place team), is a mistake. By the way, Pujols has yet to make an error this year in the field.

I stand by my argument: So far in 2010, Pujols is in the top 5 of NL MVP candidates. You can disagree, of course. After all, it is your post and your poll.

David

I think that Halladay and Jimenez are more important to their teams so far this season than Pujols. You could argue that Lincecum could be replaced by Werth and maybe Pujols, but I think Werth is even more valuable to his team this season than Albert, and he didn't even make my top-five.

I want to see the argument that Halladay has pitched better than Lincecum this year. Lincecum has left every start with a lead and is still undefeated. Halladay has a loss and worse peripheral numbers.

Really?

Halladay has more wins. You can blame the bullpen for Lincecum not having more wins, but you then look at the fact that Halladay has 3 Complete Games while Lincecum has 0. Halladay FINISHES his games.
Halladay also has gone 8+ innings in 4 starts, Lincecum in 1.
Halladay has given up 1 or 0 runs in 4 of his seven starts, Lincecum has done it in 3 (again, Halladay doing it going deeper into games).
Halladay has given up less home runs in more innings pitched.
Halladay (as already noted) has a better ERA by nearly half a run.

Lincecum beats out Halladay in really three things: WHIP (but not by much), Strikeouts (and that's expected) and BAA.

I really don't see how you can say that Lincecum has pitched better than Halladay, especially when Halladay is going deeper into games.