Skip to content

Ryan Braun is your 2011 NL MVP

Nov 22, 2011, 2:13 PM EDT

Milwaukee Brewers v St Louis Cardinals - Game Five Getty Images

Congratulations to Ryan Braun for beating out Matt Kemp for the 2011 NL MVP.  A big assist to the other Milwaukee Brewers for being better than the Los Angeles Dodgers, thereby making Braun more valuable.  At least I guess that’s how that worked.

Braun received 20 of the 32 first place votes, Kemp got 10 and Prince Fielder and Justin Upton each got a single first place vote.  Overall, Kemp was second, followed by Fielder, Upton, Albert Pujols, Joey Votto and Lance Berkman.  It’s interesting that Clayton Kershaw was 11th after having a pretty dominant kind of year.  Was the difference between his season and Justin Verlander‘s really 10 slots on the ballot?  An interesting philosophical question.  Also: Michael Young got boned. He was such a great leader that he should have gotten some NL votes too.

Anyway, as said before, Braun had an outstanding season.  I think Kemp’s was better once you factor in defense and the quality of pitching he had to face over the course of the year, but you really do need to be a special kind of person to get truly outraged here.  I would have voted differently, but this is way closer to tomato/tomahto territory than it is to travestyland.

Congratulations Ryan Braun.

118 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. cup0pizza - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:16 PM

    Well, that sucks.

    • Old Gator - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM

      Not nearly as much as your always irrelevant, always obnoxious, always gratuitious, always unpleasant, always witless, not nearly sufficiently infrequent comments here.

    • thekcubrats - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:37 PM

      Ditto, OG. Love the ad hominem, especially when it’s earned. Just keep your howitzers pointed away from my lawn.

      And, about Braun v. Kemp…

      Craig and all the commenters on previous entry left out steals, which is how a guy with NOBODY behind him scored more R. SB kind of a weak stat, but it’s just another thing that should’ve tipped the scale to which one was most valuable to his team (and the league and the fans and…).

      Without Kemp, Duds lose 122, without Braun Brews lose just enough more to maybe miss the ‘offs.

      Just a ridic award (not as bad as a Jeter GG but…) since the thing that seems to matter most to the voters is the postseason (i.e., getting there) which of course is not supposed to be a consideration since postseason performance isn’t and can’t be part of the vote.

      • chrisdtx - Nov 22, 2011 at 4:30 PM

        Steals is kind of a wash, no? Braun was 33-for-39, Kemp was 40-for-51.

    • randygnyc - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:50 PM

      Kemp. Nuf said.

  2. thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:17 PM

    They always have to f**k up at least one, don’t they?

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:21 PM

      Fun with down ballot stuff:

      Roy Halladay bested Clayton Kershaw in the MVP vote 52 points to 29 points. So, Roy is more valuable, just not as Cy Young worthy.

      • drmonkeyarmy - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:31 PM

        Also, how in the hell did Ryan Howard finish above Victorino? Seriously.

      • Alex K - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:38 PM

        Teh Fear!

      • Kevin S. - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:07 PM

        For what it’s worth, NL Cy Young voters is a different pool from NL MVP voters in any given year.

      • bozosforall - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:10 PM

        Someone should just give you the Cry Young award.

      • scatterbrian - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:34 PM

        As long as we can give you Sigh Young…

    • Alex K - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:23 PM

      Well, it’s two of them this year. Neither are bad choices, just not the best choices.

  3. Jeff M. - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:20 PM

    I think Kemp shoulda won, but congratulations to Braun.

  4. amaninwhite - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:21 PM

    Predicting award winners requires a greater understanding of the voters’ mindset than it does of the actual player performances.

    • wlschneider09 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM

      Amen to that

  5. mvp43 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM

    Good choice, I think Braun is deserving. The stats between Braun, Kemp & Fielder were very close but, you can’t discount the pressure of a penant race, and Braun consistantly came through time after time.

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:25 PM

      You also can’t discount that Kemp played a tougher defensive position and played in a pitcher’s park….except that you just did so I’m clearly wrong.

      • Old Gator - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:30 PM

        I also discount that. Playing in a pitcher’s park could also work to Kemp’s advantage in terms of his fielding. There’s also the small matter of how a good ballplayer adjusts to the circumstances of his particular home field, and the leveling effect of the half a season’s worth of games played in other ballparks. But the bottom line is that the overall value of a ballplayer to a successful team means something substantial – ie, he helped them win – while the value of a ballplayer to an unsuccessful team means something mainly at the turnstiles, if anywhere.

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:35 PM

        You’re right Gator. Therefore, let’s retroactively strip Cal Ripken of his 1991 MVP, Albert Pujols of his 2008 MVP, Barry Bonds of his 2001 and 2004 MVPs, Andre Dawson of his 1987 MVP, Ernie Banks of both his MVPs…etc. It would have been better off had they just not even played.

      • kehnn - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:49 PM

        I don’t think its all about whether or not a team made the playoffs, as much as it is about how competitive they were. I don’t think andre dawson should have won the MVP back in 87 and I don’t think A-rod should have won it for the Rangers. Something just feels wrong when a guy gets his numbers in meaningless games all year. I think Frank thomas should have won it in 91 as well.

    • jdillydawg - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM

      And shouldn’t we factor in the issue that Kemp probably went half the season wondering if he was going to pick up a paycheck? Sure, there are a lot of factors on the field to consider, but really, if you can’t make rent, does any of that matter. :)

      Of course, Matt’s not going have much problem making rent for a few years now…

    • thewo2 - Nov 22, 2011 at 4:10 PM

      I think that Kemp and Braun had similar stats but I would not include Fielder. Kemp is the best player in the NL for 2011. Hank Aaron award for offense and a Gold Glove. Just not on winning team

  6. Walk - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM

    No need to look any further than the win column. If kemp was truly the better player the dodgers would have the better record. /sarcasm off

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM

      Yep! That’s exactly why I chose Raul Ibanez as my 2011 MVP.

    • thewo2 - Nov 22, 2011 at 4:31 PM

      Kemp was the better player. Hank Aaron award for best offense and Gold Glove. Braun did not win either award.

  7. yankeesfanlen - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:23 PM

    Don’t feel bad, Craig. No one remembers next year anyway and by the time his contract comes up again it will only make people think of how old he is and it was that long ago.
    Mickey only won it in ’56, ’57 and ’62

    • skids003 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM

      And Ted Williams didn’t win it in 1941, when he hit .406, because one writer who voted didn’t like him and left him completely off his ballot.

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:31 PM

        I vote to amend the way Ted Williams 1941 is described. Instead of saying “the year he hit .406″, we should say “the year he hit .406/.553/.735 with a 234 OPS+, lead the league with 37 home runs falling just 5 RBIs short of the triple crown”. Just saying he hit .406 doesn’t give the full picture of how absurdly great that season was.

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM

        “And Ted Williams didn’t win it in 1941, when he hit .406, because one writer who voted didn’t like him and left him completely off his ballot.”

        Well, the Yankees did win the division by 17 games, so clearly DiMaggio was more valuable.

      • hep3 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:26 PM

        Well, Dimaggio did have a small hitting streak that summer that got some attention. Did you know Joe only struck out 13 times that year?

        You couldn’t go wrong either way.

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:39 PM

        Joe Posnanski wrote a great article about hitting streaks a while back. Really…it’s neat and all…but does it denote value? What’s the difference if a player hits in 30 straight games and then goes hitless in his next 4 and a player who also hits in 30 out of 34 games, just not in a row? DiMaggio had the hitting streak, but Williams was the better hitter by far (not to imply DiMaggio wasn’t also absurdly great that year).

      • basedrum777 - Nov 22, 2011 at 7:35 PM

        “(Joe) DiMaggio was the greatest all-around player I ever saw. His career cannot be summed up in numbers and awards. It might sound corny, but he had a profound and lasting impact on the country.”

        Where are the folks above talking about defense when people question joe D?

  8. franklapidus316 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:25 PM

    When they’re picking a playoff or All Star game MVP, its always the best player on the winning team. And no one has a hissy fit if some guy on the losing team had a better series, I mean Mike Napoli was pretty much the best player in WS, and I’m still waiting for the Outrage Machine. The NL MVP is really a case of two guys having almost identical stats lines, whatever type of stats anyone likes. So basically it came down to Kemp fielding a tougher position vs. Braun playing on a better team. And OMG, they picked the guy on the better team over Positional Adjustments. If its as close as this race, I truly have no problem with breaking the tie with the guy on the better team.

    • thekcubrats - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:44 PM

      there are a good number of playoff MVPs from losing teams, Hacman for one; facts matter, look some up every once in awhile

      • franklapidus316 - Nov 22, 2011 at 5:17 PM

        OK, facts matter, the last WS MVP from a losing team was in 1960.

  9. uyf1950 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    Before I go any further I want to make it perfectly clear that I’m not in any way diminishing Braun’s accomplishments or the fact that he won the NL-MVP Award.

    I just find it interesting that Kershaw comes in 12 in the NL voting with stats that are not all that unlike Verlander’s who won the the AL version. And that Braun’s stats are not that much better than Ellsbury’s stats who didn’t win the AL version.

    It seems to me some inconsistent voting between the 2 leagues. In fact to my eye the only thing constant in the voting is that the winners while both are certainly worthy is that they played on teams that made the post season and the 2nd place finishers didn’t.

    Like I said I think both winners worthy, I just seem to me to some inconsistencies in the voting criteria.

    • nightman13 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:31 PM

      I totally agree that Kershaw got hosed, I don’t think he should have won the MVP but to be so far back in the voting when Verlander won is ridiculous.

      • philliesblow - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:45 PM

        Kershaw had it easier than Verlander. He got to pitch to pitchers and everyone knows pitchers aren’t real baseball players. **Sarcasm switch turned off now**

      • jdillydawg - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:03 PM

        Of course, that could just show how shallow the American League was in terms of candidates and that the depth in the NL was far greater.

        This coming from a die-hard NL fan, so take my subtle AL insult with a grain of salt…

      • Kevin S. - Nov 22, 2011 at 4:44 PM

        I’ll take it with a mountain. You really want to compare Braun and Kemp with Ellsbury and Bautista? Granderson would have made the NL a three-player race, and he pretty clearly fell behind the pack in the AL.

    • kehnn - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:43 PM

      I would guess that the difference has something to do with the way verlander was head and shoulders over every other pitcher in the AL, where Kershaw actually had some competition.

    • uyf1950 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:55 PM

      kehnn – even we took your comment at face value. That would account for Verlander winning the Cy Young easily. It has nothing to do with him winning the AL-MVP and Kershaw coming in 12 in the NL-MVP.

      • kehnn - Nov 22, 2011 at 6:11 PM

        I wasn’t saying it was right. I don’t think pitchers should be mvp. The Hank Aaron award is pretty much an unknown award and pitchers have the Cy. I just think that people who lean toward voting for a pitcher for mvp tend to vote that way only when the players is far and away the best pitcher in the league, like Verlander was.

  10. nightman13 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    How can anybody complain about this at all? Braun hit for a better average and the only reason his total numbers were worse was because he missed a bunch of games. He was the second best clutch hitter in baseball behind Pujols (and really Pujols did most of his clutch hitting in the playoffs) and he didn’t get the benefit of playing a single game on national TV until the playoffs.

    Braun’s defensive short comings are overrated too. Yeah he doesn’t have great range, but he makes plays on everything he gets to and he throws his fair share of runners out.

    Kemp got all the hype being in a big market and playing for a worthless team. Braun earned all his hype, just like the Brewers did. When’s the last time a team that made the League Championship Series didn’t play ONE SINGLE nationally televised game?

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM

      Braun hit for a better average and the only reason his total numbers were worse was because he missed a bunch of games.

      Because BA is a terrible stat to use as comparison for hitters

      He was the second best clutch hitter in baseball behind Pujols

      Actually, all their clutch stats are almost identical

      Braun/Kemp
      sOPS+
      157 155 2 outs, RISP
      188 178 Late & Close
      166 178 Tie Game
      184 182 Within 1 R
      183 178 Within 2 R
      179 166 Within 3 R
      173 170 Within 4 R
      179 184 Margin > 4 R
      174 178 Ahead
      179 157 Behind

      Braun’s defensive short comings are overrated too. Yeah he doesn’t have great range, but he makes plays on everything he gets to and he throws his fair share of runners out.

      His range is abysmal, and also he has 31 assists the last four years (9+8+6+8). Kemp on the other hand has 43 (16+14+3+11).

      • nightman13 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:47 PM

        Except Braun’s clutch situations were with the pressure of winning a division on his shoulders and Kemp’s were with “it’d be nice to win today” pressure.

      • davidpom50 - Nov 22, 2011 at 4:03 PM

        “Except Braun’s clutch situations were with the pressure of winning a division on his shoulders and Kemp’s were with “it’d be nice to win today” pressure.”

        Poor Braun, all that weight on his shoulders. I mean, the way he had to drag Fielder into the post-season was just sad.

    • jdillydawg - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:05 PM

      How are you valuable if you can’t play? Not saying Braun isn’t deserving, but if he missed a bunch of games, that doesn’t really add value in my book.

      Unless keeping him on the bench actually made them a better team those days. Which I’m quite sure wasn’t the case…

    • thewo2 - Nov 22, 2011 at 4:36 PM

      Kemp was not hype. He plays in a pitchers ballpark. His offensive numbers would have be untouchable by Braun in similar ball parks. His range on defense is unmatched. Listen to Tim Kershin of ESPN and he said that Kemp was the best player but his vote went to Braun because of team standings.

      • bklynbaseball - Nov 23, 2011 at 1:50 PM

        Do you mean Tim Kurkjian??

  11. dgstan - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM

    Kemp did it pretty much on his own while getting pitched around all year long. Braun had a lot of talented teammates surrounding him, ensuring he got the pitches to hit.

    Oh well. With McCourt gone, hopefully the Dodgers will have a shot next year.

    • nightman13 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:37 PM

      What talented teammates besides Fielder?

      Weeks was hurt for almost a third of the year, Hart was hurt and streaky, Nyjer Morgan was streaky and a platoon guy, Casey MaGhee was awful, Betancort was awful, Lucroy was good, but hit 8th way behind Braun.

      Braun and Fielder were the Brewers offense and Kemp has Ethier.

      Plus if runners aren’t on, Fielder faces a huge shift, so Braun actually protected Fielder because Fielder’s number vs the shift are awful.

  12. phukyouk - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM

    Here is my take on the whole MVP not making the Playoffs..

    If you have $100 Million in the Bank and someone gives you a $500,000 house you would be OK but the value of it is lower than someone with $30 K in the bank, right? I mean with or without that house your life would be exactly the same as it is today, whereas, the guy with the $30K would Value that house as much more than a $500K house.. it would mean everything to him.

    with the MVP how can ones value to a team that doesn’t make the postseason be worth anything close to a guy who helped his team get there? I mean I can understand if Kemp’s number were off the chart stupid and Braun was just an above Avg player. in this case the fact that the Brewers made it to the playoffs with Brauns help the Dodgers would have finished in the same spot (or lower) without Kemp.

    That is just how i see it.

    • shaka49 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM

      You appear to be confused about what the term “value” means. While I understand your attempted analogy, but your logic fails on two levels. The value of a $500K house is…$500K, regardless if Warren Buffett is living there or if I lived there. And in this case Warren Buffett is the Brewers, because they had $100M in the bank (Fielder) and made the playoffs, and I am the Dodgers, for the opposite reason, and by your rational Kemp means more to the Dodgers and has a higher “value”?

      That is why your post is confusing. Your logic fails…and you fail to understand what value means.

      Kemp was more valuable than Braun this year. Just because more writers have your failed logic doesn’t change that fact.

      • phukyouk - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:25 PM

        Actually no… the $100 Million is the Dodgers not making the playoffs with Kemp and the $30K is the Brewers making the playoffs with Braun. make sense now? no? ok

        500K is 500K but its worth less to Warren buffet than it is to a homeless guy for the simple reason that to warren Buffet 500K has as much meaning to him as $100. if he loses $500 today he wouldn’t bat an eye.. it would have ZERO impact on his day to day life or anything going forward. with the Brewers if they dont have braun the most likely do not make the playoffs. his VALUE compared to Kemps is MUCH higher even though they are both worth the same $500K

      • phukyouk - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:26 PM

        Still confused? please look at Def 1 & 3
        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value

      • shaka49 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM

        Ok…I’m not going to argue your analogy. You are obviously in the “Best Player on a Playoff Team = MVP” camp. Which is a perfectly defensible position.

        At least you aren’t arguing that Braun had a better year than Kemp, that would be insulting my intelligence…which, granted, isn’t all that high to begin with.

      • phukyouk - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:38 PM

        no. at no point did i say that he had better year. i said that their numbers were so close that i think the playoff part pushes him over line

  13. hansob - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:31 PM

    2 people left Pujols off their ballots? Geez. Did they vote in May?

    • Joe - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM

      One of the lesser-discussed logical errors in MVP voting – the “he wasn’t as good this year as he was last year” factor. It’s difficult for a great player to get a lot of love when his numbers are measurably worse than they were the previous season. He could still be the best player in the league, but how can you name him MVP if he played worse than before?

  14. philliesblow - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:34 PM

    Maybe we have to take writer biases out of the award. Let’s deep six the MVP award and replace it with the Mr. WAR award.

    • drmonkeyarmy - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:37 PM

      Yeah, but what WAR would they use? Baseball reference, fangraphs? I was doing a comparison of Ellsbury and Verlander yesterday and baseball reference had Verlander with a higher WAR while fangraphs had Ellsbury.

      • philliesblow - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM

        Easy, whichever organization pays the most for the naming rights.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:12 PM

        Because fWAR uses FIP whereas bWAR uses RA/9 (Kevin S correct me if I’m wrong). You’ll see the largest discrepancies between pitchers of the two.

      • tjammin - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM

        WAR. Yes, sure. The math dork’s dream. According to all the Arvid Engens out there and their WAR, Gallardo was only worth 0.9 wins to the Brewers this year. If you believe that, you are certifiable.

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:45 PM

        “Yes, sure. The math dork’s dream.”

        Really, you have to attack math now? I hope there is an engineer at the toll booth of every bridge who punches you in the for bad mouthing math and says.

        Also, how’s this for math: Hits/(PA-SH-SF-HBP-BB)= batting average

        Or “Pitcher Wins”: Number of times a pitcher exits a game after 5 innings with his team in the lead and said lead does not get relinquished.

      • Kevin S. - Nov 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM

        Mostly correct. fWAR uses FIP. rWAR uses RA/9 and then attempts to adjust for defense.

        Yovani Gallardo had 0.9 batting WAR (by Fangraphs) this year. His pitching WAR was 3.1 and 2.7 by Fangraphs and B-R, respectively.

      • tjammin - Nov 22, 2011 at 4:36 PM

        Clearly,
        x = {q + [q2 + (r-p2)3]1/2}1/3 + {q – [q2 + (r-p2)3]1/2}1/3 + p
        where, p = -b/(3a), q = p3 + (bc-3ad)/(6a2), r = c/(3a)
        But since this could be expanded to 2(cos(ax−bx)−cos(ax+bx))−k2(cos(ax+bx)+cos(ax−bx))=−1
        Which can be simplified to:
        (1−k)cos(ax−bx)−(1+k)cos(ax+bx)=−2
        therefore clearly Kemp is WAY better than Braun, therefore should have been the MVP no question.

    • bozosforall - Nov 22, 2011 at 4:58 PM

      The know-it-all regulars here would probably love that, philliesblow.

  15. hansob - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:39 PM

    The four voters who placed Ryan Howard in their top 5 would kindly ask you all to stay off their lawns.

    • drmonkeyarmy - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM

      Yeah, Howard is one of my favorite players and even I think that is ridiculous. If they were compelled to vote for a Phillies position player, it should have been Victorino.

  16. faithfulfriar - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:43 PM

    Congrats to Braun for the MVP.

    But seriously, BBWAA…. Clayton Kershaw is the CY winner, has a statistically better season than Halladay, and finishes 23 pts behind him for MVP?

    • drmonkeyarmy - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:47 PM

      They were very comparable in terms of performance. It is very hard to statistically separate Kershaw and Halladay, particularly once park bias is adjusted for.

      • faithfulfriar - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:55 PM

        I agree, very comparable. But Kershaw did edge him in the categories, which has to be why they voted Kershaw CY.

        But it seems to me that Kershaw was dropped in the MVP voting because he pitched for a non-playoff team, which seems bogus to me. A pitcher can’t control 4 out of 5 games, only the one he pitched. So why do Kershaw’s stats get discounted when Halladay also had 3 other potential aces on the rotation winning those games Halladay had no control over anyway? Seems unfair to Kershaw

        The only other explanation is the park bias you mentioned, which if they came out and said that Halladay got more votes cause he put up comparable stats in a hitters park, I would not mind that reasoning at all. But I have a feeling they would say something more along the line of “he pitched in a hitters park, had comparable numbers to Kershaw, and led his team to the playoffs”

  17. great8brewer - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:47 PM

    even as a huge Braun fan and Brewer fan I was a little shocked that he won the MVP over Kemp. They both were very deserving and arguments can and will be made either way. It is a team sport and when surrounded with talented teammates it is surely going to make a difference in your performance.

    So was Kemp more “valuable” to his team than Braun? I dont think he was as Braun was an integral part in why the Brewers made it to the post season, which makes he extremely valuable. Kemps numbers were great and nearly reached a triple crown but did those numbers give any real value to the Dodgers? Not really.

    Congrats Ryan. And kudos to Kemp for an outstanding year. But it is the the most valuable, not the most outstanding, player award.

  18. thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:53 PM

    What’s truly frustrating about this is how inconsistent writers are with the “team has to make the playoffs” standard. Every four years or so, they seem to forget about it then bring it back up a few years later to justify a poor voting choice. If Cal Ripken’s 1991 season had happened in 1992 instead, he would have gotten 1 first place vote and a bunch of voters saying “his team was last! How was he valuable!”

    It’s called the Most Valuable Player….not the Best Player on a Good Team award. No one player can turn a 65 win team into a 90 win team. In 1920, Babe Ruth shattered essentially every meaningful offensive record imaginable….and his team still finished 3rd. Was he not the most valuable then? Should Tris Speaker with an OPS .334 points lower have won because he was the best player on the winning team?

    Division Titles, Pennants and World Series are used to celebrate team accomplishments. It seems like MVPs should be used to celebrate individual accomplishments.

    • great8brewer - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM

      I dont disagree with you completely thefalcon, but I would ask, how was Kemp more valuable to his team than Braun was?

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:06 PM

        1. The defensive spectrum. Not all position are created equal. Why are there no catcher’s with 500 home runs? Home come so many more first baseman hit 30 home runs than shortstops? Because some it is much more difficult to fill those positions with players who can play them at an acceptable level defensively.
        C-SS-2B-CF-3B-RF-LF-1B. This is the spectrum. A player can be much worse defensively and play left field than center. It is much harder to fill the center field position. If Braun and Kemp are both average at their positon *Kemp is more valuable*. Players often move right on the sprectrum…they almost never move left.

        2. Park Factors: Miller Park 3 year park factor is 105, meaning offense is increased by 5% over the average park. Dodger stadium is 98, meaning offense is suppressed by 2%. If player A hits .300/.400/.500 in a 105 park and player B hits .300/.400/.500 in a 98 park, player B is better. He’s runs are coming in an environment where runs are harder to come by…therefore, are worth more.

        3. Matt Kemp beat Braun in the following categories:
        Runs, Hits, HR, RBI, OBP, OPS, SB, TB, OPS+, WAR. If A and B weren’t a factor, Kemp would still rank a bit better than Braun.

      • shaka49 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:13 PM

        Because Kemp was worth over 2 more wins this year than Braun was. While you may dislike WAR, it does an excellent job of quantifying “value”. Kemp was worth 10 wins this year. Braun was worth 7.7. Kemp was more valuable than Braun.

        It’s ok to believe that the best player on a winning team should get the MVP, and therefore Braun should win. Just don’t insult my intelligence by stating you actually believe that Kemp wasn’t a better player than Braun this year.

      • great8brewer - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:20 PM

        I see where your coming from falcon. And as I said I dont completely disagree. And thanks for keeping the convo civil! I am not trying to insult anyones intelligence. Just stating my opinion.

        Kemp was deserving and had I vote probably would have voted for him given his numbers. Thats why I said I was a little shocked by the announcement.

        Heck, its being said Peyton Manning could be MVP in the NFL and he hasnt played a game.

        Maybe they change it to Most Outstanding Player like they do in college.

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:13 PM

      That being said great8, the choice of Braun isn’t actually any huge crime. The reason he was is the infuriating park.

      That being said, .332/.397/.597 with 33 steals and 7.7 WAR…he had an awfully great year.

  19. charlutes - Nov 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM

    Lol, nice Michael Young punchline. Take that Nepotism! (I’m assuming the guy who voted for Young thinks they are somehow related…I also just really like the word Nepotism.)

  20. andyreidisfat - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:09 PM

    First to the guy who said te brewers didn’t play a national game your dead wrong I watched them 4-5 times this season and judging by the fact my blood alcohol content is under a 1.0 I don’t like in Wisconsin( not a dig, just a fact)

  21. bozosforall - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:11 PM

    thefalcon123 – Nov 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM
    “And Ted Williams didn’t win it in 1941, when he hit .406, because one writer who voted didn’t like him and left him completely off his ballot.”

    Well, the Yankees did win the division by 17 games, so clearly DiMaggio was more valuable.

    __
    Yet another Cry Young-worthy post.

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:16 PM

      Seriously dude, if you’re going to make terrible insults, at least make puns off the award in question. It seems like there are so many more options for MVP than there are for Cy Young.

      • bozosforall - Nov 22, 2011 at 5:07 PM

        Seriously, get over yourself. The Cry Young joke was in reference to all of your whining about Verlander winning the MVP as a pitcher (like he was supposed to be satisfied with the Cy Young). Try keeping up, stat geek.

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 6:04 PM

        You missed my point. I wasn’t saying I didn’t get the insult, I’m saying that the insult was really, really stupid.

      • bozosforall - Nov 22, 2011 at 7:42 PM

        If the insult is stupid, then it fits you to a T.

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM

      “Kemp was responsible for 18% of his team’s total runs (and nearly 21% of his team’s RBIs), while Braun was only responsible for 15% of his team’s total runs (and 16% of his team’s RBIs). Kemp was more valuable.”-Bozo on a different thread.

      Hey Bozo, I came upon this quote in another thread from you and wanted to address it. There was an AL players “responsible” for 22.8% of his teams total runs. His runs scored plus RBIs divided by his teams total runs would rank amongst the best in the league. His name is Ichiro Suzuki and he had a .645 OPS, hit .272 with no power or walks and had, by all accounts a terrible season.

      And THAT is why your Runs Responsible formula is moronic.

      • bozosforall - Nov 22, 2011 at 5:09 PM

        My “runs responsible” award is only to be utilized as a tie-breaker of sorts, not as the be-all, end-all decider, idiot. Hence, Ichiro isn’t even in the convo due to all the other stats you posted. You bringing him into the convo is what is moronic.

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 6:10 PM

        Yes, but you’re tie breaker is ridiculous. Hence, my Ichiro example.

        See, if I say my tiebreaker is the number of 9th inning game winning doubles in the month of August, that doesn’t mean my statistic that I pulled out of my ass is anything other than worthless. Can you pull up a number of examples that put your stat to the test to confirm the hypothesis that % of “runs produced” correlates with value? You see, when Bill James made runs created, he tested his formula with various teams and discovered punching in those fancy and scary number did correlate to the numbers of runs scored.

        Math and science is your friend! But throwing out a hypothesis without testing it is just pulling stuff out of your ass. See, I have hypothesis that your are in fact a genius, but just really bored, so you entertain yourself by playing a complete f**king moron on the internet…because seriously, no one can actually be this stupid.

      • bozosforall - Nov 22, 2011 at 7:44 PM

        Actually, someone CAN be that stupid. You are living proof of that. I see how you found that stat that you pulled out of your ass…your head was in there and you could see it clear as day.

  22. bbk1000 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:17 PM

    He appreciates the award but he really wanted the batting crown…..

  23. tjammin - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:28 PM

    Funny to see all the math calculations some baseball fans use to justify their positions. The only real facts here are this: both players had outstanding seasons, both were statistically a dead heat, and both were pitched around: anyone who watched the Brewers at all has seen opposing pitchers put Braun on with 4 or 5 pitches and then go ahead and get Fielder to strike out or hit into a DP. It happened consistently. The bottom line is this is MVP, most valuable player. If you believe your precious WAR statistic, take away Kemp’s 8.7 wins and you move the Dodgers from 3rd place to 3rd place. Take away Braun’s 7.8 wins, and Milwaukee stays home from the playoffs. It isn’t that you HAVE to play for a playoff team to win, but when the stats are this close, clearly the player that got his team into the playoffs has the edge. You simply can’t be as valuable on a losing team-and it’s always been that way.

    • great8brewer - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM

      well said!

  24. great8brewer - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM

    rarely does an award of this caliber come without debate about did or didnt win. The Dodgers realized what great things Kemp did and while he didnt get the hardware, he got the paycheck. Deservedly so! I like Kemp. He’s a gamer. And I wont be surprised when next year he is announced as the MVP and/or a Triple Crown winner!

  25. dasher521 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:47 PM

    Would the Brewers have made the playoffs without Braun? I don’t know. Would the Dodgers have made the playoffs without Kemp? Oh, they didn’t make the playoffs. Unless someone on a non playoff team is head and shoulder above everyone (i.e. Dawson for the Cubs), then they guy on the playoff team has to get the award.

    • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 3:55 PM

      Woah! Dawson…was…head and shoulders…above….huh?!?!

      In 87′ Dawson ranked 1st in home runs and RBIs.
      He ranked 10th in OPS, 22nd in BA, 42nd in on base percentage, 6th in slugger percentage, 45th in doubles…

      At the very least Jack Clark, Eric Davis, Tony Gwynn, Tim Raines, Darryl Strawberry, Dale Murphy, Pedro Guerrero and Mike Schmidt had much better seasons than Dawson in 87.

      • bozosforall - Nov 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM

        Be careful, dasher. How dare you offend the all-knowing “falcon”. Of course, once we get out of the Internet version of The Wizard of Oz, falcon is left sitting in his mom’s basement poring over the latest copy of Bill James’s Sabermetrics Spectacular, while the rest of us live normal lives. How dare someone who leads the league in driving in runs even think that he is a worthy MVP? Because as everyone knows, hits are much more important than runs in baseball.

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 6:15 PM

        “falcon is left sitting in his mom’s basement poring over the latest copy of Bill James’s Sabermetrics Spectacular,”

        My mom doesn’t even have a basement. I’m sitting in her living room, moron.

        And it’s the Bill James Handbook, thank you very much.

      • bozosforall - Nov 22, 2011 at 7:47 PM

        Good to know that you still live with your mom (as I suspected all along). Bonus points for correctly knowing what the title of the Bill James publication was. Handbook…is that short for “Handjob-inducing stat book for stat geeks’?

      • thefalcon123 - Nov 22, 2011 at 9:57 PM

        “Handbook…is that short for “Handjob-inducing stat book for stat geeks’?”

        Yes, actually. Bill James is best known for inducing handjobs. I’m shocked he wasn’t “Sexiest Man Alive” this year, but it’s all politics really…ya know?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Managers get easier path to Cooperstown
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Street (4042)
  2. C. Lee (2982)
  3. H. Ramirez (2918)
  4. T. Tulowitzki (2862)
  5. C. Headley (2744)
  1. Y. Puig (2733)
  2. B. Belt (2545)
  3. J. Soria (2509)
  4. R. Howard (2281)
  5. T. Walker (2272)