But why should he not converse about others who have had excellent seasons? Guys for whom he might vote (if he has a vote)? After all, an MVP voter can vote for up to 10 guys, in order of preference. http://bbwaa.com/voting-faq/. Following your logic, the MVP voter should vote for only one candidate. Giving votes (and the points that go with them) to others might jeopardize the chances of the voter’s #1 candidate.

For example, I might argue that Ben Zobrist deserves consideration. No, I don’t think he is the MVP, but were I to make out my (unofficial) ballot, I might put him somewhere between 6-10, and if others thought similarly, he might end up 8th in the final count, a recognition of his value. I don’t think we have to be too literal minded about the phrase “deserves consideration” as if it only means actually deserves to be MVP.

I think there is value in that kind of thinking as it creates discussion about what constitutes value and helps to re-evaluate players who otherwise might never be recognized. For example, according to BB-Ref, Zobrist has a higher WAR than Josh Hamilton this year. (According to Fangraphs, they are nearly dead even.) By saying Zobrist is “in the conversation”, it raises some interesting questions-one of which is the value of WAR as an evaluation measurement. After all, if you consider WAR a useful tool, and you think Hamilton is a legitimate choice for MVP, then why wouldn’t Zobrist also be in the conversation?

By the way, according to both systems, Zobrist is between .8 & 1.2 points of WAR less valuable than Cabrera, so again, if Cabrera is really a clearly reasonable choice, why not Zobrist in the conversation even if you would not select him?

I don’t think you can use the same argument for Jeter, but there are criteria for MVP other than WAR which might make it legitimate to consider Jeter in the conversation even if he is not one’s actual choice.

“Fine, you just said his name, so he’s in the conversation. Now shut up.”

Kinda taking the fun out of this.

I take back my LOL.

What I dislike is when people argue that someone should be “in the conversation” but don’t sincerely believe — or argue — that they should be first. That DISTRACTS from the people who should genuinely win.

I think it’s safe to say he’s not in the conversation unless someone really likes to talk about him but thanks to thomas2727 for making me think.

You see this argument comes from the realm of Quantum Mechanics. I know it APPEARS that there is only one MVP but in fact there are many MVPs depending on which parallel universe you are in. The probability is that Jeter doesn’t win in our universe but one time in many he may win in the universe of Richard Justice. Our issue is we’re not in Justice’s universe. We can’t really poke holes in his argument from here.
But the Higgs Boson will still confer mass.

DJ JH
1012 1182 April
692 1187 May
608 754 June
814 607 July
941 943 August
926 892 Sept

I’m not sure the data at all support the hypothesis. It looks like both batters had big slumps, but that (by this measure) Hamilton has been better in good times and in bad.

so saying a guy is “in the conversation” is probably fine in a discussion of the MVP candidates (not that I’m sure I’d put Jeter there anyway, but the specifics are moot) even if it’s not appropriate on discussing who will win it. After all, how can you put the top 10 guys on the list without thinking/discussing them?