Sean O Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Wait, most people are saying Hanley? I'm... i'm so happy, and surprised. Thank you, MVP people, for instilling some faith in the interweb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles12 Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 does it really matter? Baseball is about having fun, not who's better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 does it really matter? Baseball is about having fun, not who's better. :headache: Oh, wow. Please, this IS fun, having a fun, interesting debate. That really came out of the blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timp Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 does it really matter? Baseball is about having fun, not who's better. Uh... yeah. Hanley in a landslide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrigleyville33 Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 does it really matter? Baseball is about having fun, not who's better. i guess i doesnt matter if your team (whoever you go for) loses or wins as long as they are having a good time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 does it really matter? Baseball is about having fun, not who's better. ........... No. wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I can just imagine: Poster 1: So, who do you think is the best closer in the game? Poster 2: Well, I would say K-Rod. Poster 3: Putz, no doubt. Poster 4: Hey, don't forget Mo. Skittles: DOES IT REALLY MATTER?!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meteamo Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 The Mets missed the playoffs this year but I don't care ... I had fun. Anyway ... it seems that the people here on this site seem to know more about baseball than the guys that voted for various MLB awards. I guess if we had our way, Hanley would be the silver slugger, Tulo probably would win the gold glove and Holliday would probably win the MVP. If you can combine Hanley's offense, Jose's base running and Tulo's defense, you would get Rollins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 If you can combine Hanley's offense, Jose's base running and Tulo's defense, you would get Rollins? No, because all three are better than Rollins. Rollins might have the best combination of all three "attributes", but Hanley's batting is too good to ignore, so he gets the nod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 If you take Hanley's offense and subtract 1/3rd of its value, Jose's base running, and about 80% of Tulo's defense, you'd have Rollins. Hanley is going to be an amazing center fielder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meteamo Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 If you take Hanley's offense and subtract 1/3rd of its value, Jose's base running, and about 80% of Tulo's defense, you'd have Rollins. Hanley is going to be an amazing center fielder. :lmao: I was being sarcastic ABC ... but I love the response. So, do you think Rollins will make the same pledge at the beginning of next year ... that the Phills are the team to beat? I'd still say it's the Braves ... as always. Speaking of the Braves, I think even Edgar Renteria was a better shortstop this past year. Too bad for them he's not a Brave anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDudleyDoWright Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Jose Reyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Unit Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Who remembers that guy who got banned trying to say Bobby Abreu was better than Albert Pujols? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Who remembers that guy who got banned trying to say Bobby Abreu was better than Albert Pujols? One of the all-time classic threads. The kid was wrong in quite literally every single way, including his main premise, that Abreu was more "consistent" than Pujols, since Albert had like a .002 variation in batting average over a 4 year span. I don't think he was banned, I think the universal response of "you're an idiot" pushed him away from the site. I gotta track that thread down. Here we go: http://mvpmods.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=329843.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsfan776 Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Ross Oeder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angryrat Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 I voted for Hanley Ramirez because I do believe he is the best short stop in the game, even if Jimmy Rollins won the MVP. There is a difference between being the best at your position, and being the reason your team was successful for a season. If it wasn't for Jimmy Rollins being the catalyst of the Philly offense, they wouldn't have made it to the playoffs, in my opinion. Therefore, he won MVP for clearly being the most important piece in their playoff push. Hanley Ramirez is a slick SS, who could be the foundation of any big league team. (period) However, if your team's most valuable player couldn't get your team in contention (not his fault, but nonetheless) than how could he be the most valuable player in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronmexico Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 A hitter with a career .308 OBP just can't be the best shortstop in the league. But Brooks Robinson can be the best 3rd basemen of his generation with a .322 obp? Not that I'm saying Yunieksy deserves it. I'd say Reyes only because of his defense over Hanley, makes him a better all around player, though Rollins could easily be it too. I'd take any of 'em on my team any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean O Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 If it wasn't for Jimmy Rollins being the catalyst of the Philly offense, they wouldn't have made it to the playoffs, in my opinion. Therefore, he won MVP for clearly being the most important piece in their playoff push. Well, here's the thing though, the Phillies had Chase Utley and Ryan Howard. Utley was every bit as valuable as Rollins this season, and if he didn't miss 2 weeks for something completely outside of his control, would have been more valuable. The MVP should either be split into two categories or should be redefined, because we're not rewarding the best players in the league. It isn't Hanley's fault that his team has a $30m payroll and can't compete, and yet he can't get any hardware because of it. It's absurd. And ron, Brooks was the best defensive third baseman in baseball history, who also had a career 104 OPS+. Yuniesky Betancourt is a mediocre fielding shortstop who can't really do much. How about this, which was the better offensive season? Brooks: .253 .304 .416 Betancourt: .289 .308 .418 The answer, of course, is Brooks, who had a 116 OPS+ because it was 1968. Betancourt mustered a robust 93 OPS+ for that line this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwinginSoriano Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Hanley Ramirez Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFallenPhoenix Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Sean, why'd you have to dig up that thread? It makes me want to cry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Unit Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Yeah, then I made a thread with a poll saying who was more consistent or better, it was 30-0 before it got locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Unit Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 One of the all-time classic threads. The kid was wrong in quite literally every single way, including his main premise, that Abreu was more "consistent" than Pujols, since Albert had like a .002 variation in batting average over a 4 year span. I don't think he was banned, I think the universal response of "you're an idiot" pushed him away from the site. I gotta track that thread down. Here we go: http://mvpmods.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=329843.html He got banned later on, I think he said something against Jewish people in a religious thread and defended it like Paris Hilton defending her special tape that got released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rambo Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Omar Vizquel has to be the best defensive shortstop going around. But for hitting and all-around good play, Hanley Ramirez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmsrenown Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Defensively I would say Vizquel, Tulowitzki, then there is McDonald... It's a tough call between Hanley and Tulowitzki for the best all-around though, but as of now, I would give Ramirez the edge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 That is a classic thread Sean O, I remember that. His anti-semitic marks weren't even in a religious thread it was in the Yankee forum, he complained about how the Red Xox farm system was getting ruined or something because it was being run by too many Jews. The idiot still hangs around at eamods and I'm not sure the admins over there like him anymore but he hasn't done anything to get banned... yet. Anyway, back to the topic... oh yeah, Hanley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.