MLB- Fearless predictions

[UTweezer]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/tom_verducci/news/2003/03/26/fearless_predictions/

AL MVP: Nomar Garciaparra, Boston
NL MVP: Albert Pujols, St. Louis
AL Cy Young: Mark Mulder, Oakland
NL Cy Young: Randy Johnson, Arizona
AL Rookie of the Year: Hideki Matsui, New York
NL Rookie of the Year: Jose Reyes, New York
AL HR Leader: Alex Rodriguez, Texas
NL HR Leader: Ken Griffey, Cincinnati
AL Batting Title: Ichiro Suzuki, Seattle
NL Batting Title: Albert Pujols, St. Louis
AL Pitching Victories: Mark Mulder, Oakland
NL Pitching Victories: Matt Morris, St. Louis
AL Comeback Player of the Year : Juan Gonzalez, Texas
NL Comeback Player of the Year: Richard Hidalgo, Houston
AL Most Overrated Player: Rey Ordonez, Tampa Bay
NL Most Overrated Player: Jason Kendall, Pittsburgh
AL Most Underrated Player: Roy Halladay, Toronto
NL Most Underrated Player: Bobby Abreu, Philadelphia
AL Breakout Player: Eric Munson, Detroit
NL Breakout Player: Mark Prior, Chicago
AL Surprise Team: Toronto Blue Jays
NL Surprise Team: Chicago Cubs
AL Disappointing Team: Chicago White Sox
NL Disappointing Team: Philadelphia Phillies
AL Manager of the Year: Carlos Tosca, Toronto
NL Manager of the Year: Dusty Baker, Chicago
AL First Manager Fired: None
NL First Manager Fired: Jeff Torborg, Florida
AL Division Winners: New York, Minnesota, Oakland
NL Division Winners: Atlanta, St. Louis, Arizona
AL Wild Card: Boston
NL Wild Card: Houston
ALCS: Oakland over New York
NLCS: Arizona over St. Louis
World Series: Oakland over Arizona

[rrj_gamz]

Originally posted by UTweezer

NL MVP: Albert Pujols, St. Louis
NL Comeback Player of the Year: Richard Hidalgo, Houston
NL Wild Card: Houston
NLCS: Arizona over St. Louis
World Series: Oakland over Arizona

Pujols???Dalgi???

I like Pujols, but NL MVP...I think not...

As for Dalgi, I hope he has a great year...Only time will tell...

Houston in the Wild Card, I can actually see that happening, but a Div. Title is what I'm expecting...
Zona...I'm not sure they'll be there, or Oakland...

Let the games begin...

Go Astros...

[rezdawg]

Originally posted by rrj_gamz
I like Pujols, but NL MVP...I think not...


Are you kidding me? He finished 2nd in MVP voting last year.

Over his 2 years as a player, he has averaged:

35.5 HR
128.5 RBI
.321 BA

Whose to say he wont improve?

He was already an MVP candidate. Any improvement could easily push him over the top.

You act as if their prediction is way off.

[coma]

NL MVP: Jeff Kent

[UTweezer]

i hope he is right about Richard Hidalgo

[Puedlfor]

Suggesting that Pujols was an MVP "candidate" suggests that there was someone other than Bonds in contention for the award.

There was most definetly not.

Betting against a player as good as Bonds, as well as he's hit the past two years, is a fool's wager, in my opinion.

[rezdawg]

Originally posted by Puedlfor
Suggesting that Pujols was an MVP "candidate" suggests that there was someone other than Bonds in contention for the award.

There was most definetly not.

Betting against a player as good as Bonds, as well as he's hit the past two years, is a fool's wager, in my opinion.

So, would one be considered a fool for not picking the Yankees?

[Puedlfor]

If the Yankees had won around 30-40 more games than everyone else the past two years, Blitzed through the postseason and had no appreciable decline - then it would be a silly wager to pick against them.

But they did not.

[rezdawg]

Originally posted by Puedlfor
If the Yankees had won around 30-40 more games than everyone else the past two years, Blitzed through the postseason and had no appreciable decline - then it would be a silly wager to pick against them.

But they did not.

Your scenario is absurd.

Bonds is obviously the best player. However, he doesnt blow the competition away.

Sosa had more HR and runs scored than Bonds while accumulating only 2 less RBI.

There were 3 categories that Bonds dominated in: Batting average, slugging percentage and walks.
Take a look at the other categories.

[Puedlfor]

yes, Bonds did blow the competition away.

It wasn't even close, and to say it is close - well I don't understand that.

He got on base more than half the time he got to the plate in the past two years - pitchers were so scared of him they walked him with no one on base, so last year he got on base an obscene 58% of the time - yet he still managed to rip 46 homers.

Yes, Sosa had three more homers.

It took him 150 more at-bats to do it though.

[rezdawg]

Your missing my point bud.

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with predicting someone else to win the freakin award. Chill out.

[Puedlfor]

Originally posted by rezdawg
Your missing my point bud.

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with predicting someone else to win the freakin award. Chill out.

Your point was that Pujols as an MVP candidate wasn't a bad choice, because he had been a candidate before.

I merely pointed out, that if you're using the most common definition of candidate - he was not, because Bonds destroyed the competition, and no one other than Bonds was ever in contention for the award.

Betting against a guy who has been so much better than the rest of the league seems to me, silly and a waste of print. The way Bonds is hitting, this is like betting someone other than Babe Ruth would be the best player in the AL in the early 20s - It's a good way to be very, very wrong.

[rezdawg]

And Bond's steroid taking ass can tear a hamstring in an instant. At that point, what do you do? Still predict Bonds to win it?

These predictions arent "fearless" for nothing.

[Puedlfor]

Bond's has played in 140 + games in 7 of the last 8 years, he doesn't seem very injury-prone to me anyways.

Besides making a prediction that is predicated on a player like Bonds, who gets plenty of rest and plays lots of games, getting injured seems pretty stupid to me. Just because you're "fearless" doesn't mean you have to be stupid.

[rezdawg]

You obviously havent watched the guy play. He cant run. If he goes from a jog to a sprint, he pulls up because his hammy's give out.

While we are talking sports, I take it you have all your money riding on the Lakers. After all, other than one series, they have blown by the competition for the last three playoff runs.

[Puedlfor]

I know he can't run, he hasn't broken into a full sprint since like 1994 though.

He's a big mashing slugger who hits a ton, scares the crap out of pitchers and gets plenty off off days to rest his body.


And the Lakers haven't shown nearly the dominance that Bonds has, consistently, over the past two years. So that comparison isn't really good.

[rezdawg]

So am I correct in saying that Randy Johnson is a 100% certainty to win the Cy Young award?

[Puedlfor]

Randy is almost as certain as Bonds to win the award.

[rezdawg]

and the Braves will win the NL East.

[Raven Lunatic]

Do understand the difference between a 100% certainty and something that is highly likely?

[DaDakota]

Can we get some of Bonds steroids to Hidalgo?

DD

[Timing]

Originally posted by Puedlfor
Betting against a guy who has been so much better than the rest of the league seems to me, silly and a waste of print. The way Bonds is hitting, this is like betting someone other than Babe Ruth would be the best player in the AL in the early 20s - It's a good way to be very, very wrong.


The obvious problem with your statement is that there is more involved in MVP voting than numbers. The last two AL MVP awards have shown that pretty clearly.

Incidentally, Babe Ruth only won 1 MVP award in his whole career.

[rezdawg]

Originally posted by Raven Lunatic
Do understand the difference between a 100% certainty and something that is highly likely?

Yes. The only problem is that there is no such a thing as 100% certainty in sports. Thats why they play the game.

[Raven Lunatic]

Originally posted by rezdawg
Yes. The only problem is that there is no such a thing as 100% certainty in sports. Thats why they play the game.

And no one is claiming that there is 100% certainty in sports, so why bother to ask things like "So am I correct in saying that Randy Johnson is a 100% certainty to win the Cy Young award?" ?

[rezdawg]

Originally posted by Raven Lunatic
And no one is claiming that there is 100% certainty in sports, so why bother to ask things like "So am I correct in saying that Randy Johnson is a 100% certainty to win the Cy Young award?" ?

Because Poodle 4 was insisting that I was wrong.

[BALLhog 247 365]

Lance Berkman was by far nuch better than Pujols...more homers, rbi's, runs, etc. Pujols was just a better avg. hitter, and had more votes than berkman because the Cardinals made it to the playoffs. Berkman wasnt that far behind in votes either. If the Astros make the playoffs, the MVP race will be between Berkman and Bonds

[xiki]

I am rooting for Shane Reynolds, but man will it be the puts if he is Comeback Player of the Year.

[Raven Lunatic]

Originally posted by rezdawg
Because Poodle 4 was insisting that I was wrong.

No, Poodle 4 was insisting that it is silly to bet against Bonds.

[rezdawg]

Originally posted by Raven Lunatic
No, Poodle 4 was insisting that it is silly to bet against Bonds.

a.k.a. I was wrong in thinking that Pujols is a candidate. It is not a 100% certainty that Bonds will win. That is my point and Poodle Boy wasnt accepting that.

[FlyerFanatic]

Originally posted by UTweezer
[NL HR Leader: Ken Griffey, Cincinnati


boo yah, griffey is going to tear it up for us this year!!!!! your going down Houston!!!!! :D

[Puedlfor]

The obvious problem with your statement is that there is more involved in MVP voting than numbers. The last two AL MVP awards have shown that pretty clearly.

The MVP is the sum total of your offensive and defensive contributions to your team. And don't mention the AL - the AL MVP is a joke, and has been since 1995.

Incidentally, Babe Ruth only won 1 MVP award in his whole career.

I am well aware of this. I am also well aware of the rule that prevented players from winning more than one MVP award. I am also aware that it was Ruth's career that made baseball change that rule.

Because Poodle 4 was insisting that I was wrong.

Cause you were. You said Pujols was an MVP candidate, he wasn't. No one besides Bonds was a candidate the past two years - he's been so much better than everyone else, it's Ruthian.

a.k.a. I was wrong in thinking that Pujols is a candidate. It is not a 100% certainty that Bonds will win. That is my point and Poodle Boy wasnt accepting that.

You were wrong in thinking Pujols was a candidate last year.

And it's silly to predict anyone besides Bonds will win the award, considering how good he's been, and the lack of dropoff in performance for Bonds. It's not a 100% certainty, I wasn't saying that. But given how dominant Bonds has been, it's pretty ridiculous to predict against him.

[rezdawg]

Poodle, there will eventually be a time when Bonds will not win the MVP. This upcoming year could be it. If not this year, then next. If not next year, then the following year. How could you possibly put a time frame on that. Pujols could very well win it this year.

[Timing]

Originally posted by Puedlfor
The MVP is the sum total of your offensive and defensive contributions to your team. And don't mention the AL - the AL MVP is a joke, and has been since 1995.

You define MVP and then dismiss half of the last 14 awarded because they don't fit into your definition. Sounds like you have a bad definition.

I am well aware of this. I am also well aware of the rule that prevented players from winning more than one MVP award. I am also aware that it was Ruth's career that made baseball change that rule.

That rule didn't stop Walter Johnson from winning two MVP's during Ruth's career.

[rowdy]

I think I'd just state it this way, if Bonds hits and plays in as many games as he did the last two seasons than no one else is a candidate, but if he starts to trail off or gets hurt than it's anyone's award.

[Puedlfor]

You define MVP and then dismiss half of the last 14 awarded because they don't fit into your definition.

My definition is on the MVP Ballot. It's not my fault the MVP voters didn't read their ballot.

That rule didn't stop Walter Johnson from winning two MVP's during Ruth's career.

Walter Johnson's MVP in 1913 wasn't actually an "MVP" award. It was the Chalmers Award, trying to recognize the most valuable player in the league - they gave him a free car. Because it WAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AWARD(this is important.), he was eligible to win the League MVP award in 1924.

The League took over MVP voting for the 20's, and allowed a player to win only once, then changed that rule in 1929 after realizing that the one mvp to a player rule was really, really silly. Hornsby won two MVP awards.

The the Baseball Writers Association of America took over in 1931, and the MVP award is awarded based on the same standards that it is today.

[meh]

And it's silly to predict anyone besides Bonds will win the award, considering how good he's been, and the lack of dropoff in performance for Bonds. It's not a 100% certainty, I wasn't saying that. But given how dominant Bonds has been, it's pretty ridiculous to predict against him.

Actually, if one were to bet Bonds vs. the Field for the MVP, most people would bet the Field. And of the candidates not named Bonds, Pujols and Berkman are the most likely candidates, given their age and past performances. I would hardly think that Pujols is a bad pick.

[DVauthrin]

I think SI is just going for a sensible yet highly unlikely pick to stir up controversy, myself.

Barry Bonds is so far ahead of any other hitter in baseball it isn't even funny.

The man has had a plus .500 obp, and high .700-800 SLG% the last two years.

That is Ruthian like.

This is like comparing a Lamborghini or Ferrari to a nice quality sports car like a Lexus or Infiniti. Both are good, but one is just worlds better.

[rezdawg]

Lets make a deal.

Lets bet $100,

I say Bonds doesnt win the MVP this year. Who wants to bet against me?

[rezdawg]

Ineresting stuff. A poll on ESPN listed the CANDIDATES for MVP.

Bonds 39.3%
Guerrero 23.7%
Sosa 16.5 %
Thome 15%
Johnson 5.3%


Over 60% of the people feel like Bonds will not win MVP. What morons.

[Lance Berkman]

berkman deserves to be right up there...

[drapg]

Originally posted by Lance Berkman
berkman deserves to be right up there...

But you're not biased or anything, right? ;)

[Raven Lunatic]

Originally posted by rezdawg
Ineresting stuff. A poll on ESPN listed the CANDIDATES for MVP.

Bonds 39.3%
Guerrero 23.7%
Sosa 16.5 %
Thome 15%
Johnson 5.3%


Over 60% of the people feel like Bonds will not win MVP. What morons.

Did you also notice that Pujols is not even on the list?

[Timing]

Originally posted by Puedlfor
My definition is on the MVP Ballot. It's not my fault the MVP voters didn't read their ballot.

Those voters must be French.

Walter Johnson's MVP in 1913 wasn't actually an "MVP" award. It was the Chalmers Award, trying to recognize the most valuable player in the league - they gave him a free car. Because it WAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AWARD(this is important.), he was eligible to win the League MVP award in 1924.

The League took over MVP voting for the 20's, and allowed a player to win only once, then changed that rule in 1929 after realizing that the one mvp to a player rule was really, really silly. Hornsby won two MVP awards.

The the Baseball Writers Association of America took over in 1931, and the MVP award is awarded based on the same standards that it is today.


Ah, alrighty. Thanks. :)

[rezdawg]

Originally posted by Raven Lunatic
Did you also notice that Pujols is not even on the list?

Are you implying that Pujols shouldnt be a candidate? If you are, then I feel sorry for you.

[Raven Lunatic]

Originally posted by rezdawg
Are you implying that Pujols shouldnt be a candidate? If you are, then I feel sorry for you.

I am deeply saddened that you feel sorry for me. Your confidence in my ability to predict who will be a candidate for MVP was the only thing that was keeping me up in the mornings. Now I don't know what I will do with myself. I guess I will just have to wander the earth, languishing in the squalor that is my life and it's knowledge that rezdawg feels sorry for me. It shall be a difficult existence, but some of us have to walk the hard road.

Here's what I was implying...Pujols is not on the list you posted.

[rezdawg]

Originally posted by Raven Lunatic
I am deeply saddened that you feel sorry for me. Your confidence in my ability to predict who will be a candidate for MVP was the only thing that was keeping me up in the mornings. Now I don't know what I will do with myself. I guess I will just have to wander the earth, languishing in the squalor that is my life and it's knowledge that rezdawg feels sorry for me. It shall be a difficult existence, but some of us have to walk the hard road.

Here's what I was implying...Pujols is not on the list you posted.

Thanks for that heartfelt essay you wrote. The fact that you actually wasted time writing that shows that it means more to you than you are willing to show.

About the poll, ESPN gathered 5 candidates. Did they get all the potential candidates? No. Berkman, Pujols, Schilling, etc. are left off this list. That is not what is important. The importance of the poll and the reason I posted it was because Bonds only got 40% of the vote. Had they replaced Thome and Johnson with Berkman and Pujols, Bonds would probably have gotten about 30% of the vote, thus proving my initial point that it is not idiotic to choose someone else as an MVP. Even the baseball guru himself, Peter Gammons, doesnt feel Bonds will win the award this year.

[dylan]

Originally posted by rezdawg
Even the baseball guru himself, Peter Gammons, doesnt feel Bonds will win the award this year.

If you really, truly, honestly think that Peter Gammons is the baseball guru rather than an addled writer who doesn't realize that there are cities other than Boston that field baseball teams then I truly feel sorry for you. May you one day learn better...

[rezdawg]

I was exaggerating with the baseball guru business. But, Peter Gammons probably knows more about baseball than any other sports analyst/writer for his/her respective sport.

[Raven Lunatic]

Originally posted by rezdawg
Thanks for that heartfelt essay you wrote. The fact that you actually wasted time writing that shows that it means more to you than you are willing to show.



Or rather, more accurately, it shows that I enjoy spending time being sarcastic for comedic purposes.

And the fact that Gammons doesn't feel Bonds will win MVP makes me all the more convinced that he will.

[rezdawg]

Originally posted by Raven Lunatic
And the fact that Gammons doesn't feel Bonds will win MVP makes me all the more convinced that he will.

Really? Why do you say that? Which baseball analyst/writer has more knowledge on the sport than Peter Gammons? Gammons could easily be the most respected person covering baseball.

[DVauthrin]

Try the Sporting News's Ken Rosenthal, for one. Or Rob Neyer, the baseball prospectus guys, among others.

Heck, even I know more about baseball than Gammons does. Just because he works for ESPN and can get all those little "rumors" we can't, doesn't make him a good analyst.

And I want to know why people think Barry is declining. He had 10 homeruns this spring, setting a Giants club record. That was still better than Pujols who had a good spring himself.

It's foolish to bet against Barry at his current play, just like it was to bet against Magic, MJ, or Bird playing in their primes.

Enough said.

[Behad]

Originally posted by DVauthrin


Heck, even I know more about baseball than Gammons does.

Do you think Gammons knew enough to pull Vlad Guerrero out of his fantasy team's starting lineup for the first matchup of the season? :)

[DVauthrin]

I had no better options, and one or two days of Vlad is better than 3 or 4 of Encarnacion.

[meh]

Originally posted by DVauthrin
Try the Sporting News's Ken Rosenthal, for one. Or Rob Neyer, the baseball prospectus guys, among others.

Heck, even I know more about baseball than Gammons does. Just because he works for ESPN and can get all those little "rumors" we can't, doesn't make him a good analyst.

And I want to know why people think Barry is declining. He had 10 homeruns this spring, setting a Giants club record. That was still better than Pujols who had a good spring himself.

It's foolish to bet against Barry at his current play, just like it was to bet against Magic, MJ, or Bird playing in their primes.

Enough said.

Why would you use spring training stats if you read the likes of Baseball prospectus and Rob Neyer?

Anyway, if someone asks me pick an MVP candidate, I'd pick Bonds. If someone ask me choose between Bonds and the field in regards to winning the MVP, I'd pick the field. No player, not even Bonds, is so good he's more likely to win the MVP over everyone else combined. Especially since writers don't really like him.

That's why there's nothing wrong with picking the likes of Pujols. Just like it wouldn't have been wrong to pick against the Yankees last year, despite their incredible dominance in recent years.

[Behad]

Originally posted by DVauthrin
I had no better options, and one or two days of Vlad is better than 3 or 4 of Encarnacion.

JD Drew could have been put on the IR and you could have picked up Burnitz or Corey Patterson, who got 17 FP for the Cubs today.

You can plan on re-claiming your title all you want, but you'll never do it if you don't pay attention.

[Behad]

And it's one day of Vlad only.

[Raven Lunatic]

Originally posted by rezdawg
Really? Why do you say that? Which baseball analyst/writer has more knowledge on the sport than Peter Gammons? Gammons could easily be the most respected person covering baseball.

I was just being an ass at Gammons's expense. The guy is obviously not an idiot when it comes to baseball, but I have noticed that he has a tendency to pull a Peter Vescey and just throw crap (stories) up on the wall and see if they stick. I know that doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, but I just don't like the way the guy works. Plus, sometimes he gives off a serious senile vibe.

[DVauthrin]

Easy there, Behad. I knew good and well that Vlad's suspension was 2 days, I just forgot about the 2 game per week split, because all my others are 1 per week h2h as well.

My team can pick up the slack with Vlad out anyway.

[DVauthrin]

But I give you credit for noticing.

[Behad]

Originally posted by DVauthrin
I just forgot about the 2 game per week split


Forgot, or didn't pay attention? :confused:

Too late, I've already decided that you and your team will be my personal whipping boys for the season. Rivalries spice things up.:eek:

[rezdawg]

Originally posted by DVauthrin
Try the Sporting News's Ken Rosenthal, for one. Or Rob Neyer, the baseball prospectus guys, among others.


Sorry, but Rob Neyer has nothing on Gammons. Besides, Neyer picks Thome for MVP in the NL.

[peleincubus]

What about Jeff Bagwell. He is having a great start to the season. I know its highly unlikely, but I think it would be great for him to win it.

He has a lot of protection behind him in the lineup.:D

[EddieWasSnubbed]

I just wanted to go out on a limb and make a prediction. I dont know if I'll be right like I was on some of my other ones.;)

The Astros will either win 89 or 98 games this year. Mark it down and keep it safe untill the first of October. We will make the playoffs either Wild Card or Division Title. I think Division though.

This shouldn't count as a prediction, because I'm taking a stab at this.... I think they will make it to the Series, but will be beaten. Them and the Yankees.:mad:

[don grahamleone]

89 games will not make the playoffs. What are you thinking? You are the great predictor, but 89 has never meant playoffs. Come on EWS! Predict Kent for a homerun that gets us to the playoffs or Miller pitching a no hitter. If 89 wins gets us into the playoff then you are a great predictor.

[EvaRocketsLuv]

89 has never meant the playoffs? In 1987 the Twins won 85 and wound up World Champions. Sometimes 89 is enough.

[EddieWasSnubbed]

89-162=73. 89-73 should be good enough to get in to the playoffs.

[EddieWasSnubbed]

:mad: Edit again:162-89=73*

[don grahamleone]

It's cool, -73. You just need absolute value symbols around the equation. I still don't think that gets us into the playoffs. EvaRocketsLuv, touche.

[rezdawg]

Looks like my prediction wasnt so far off at this point...

Pujols for MVP.

Bonds, not close.

:D

[fatman510]

So far those predictions are scary good

[DVauthrin]

Originally posted by rezdawg
Looks like my prediction wasnt so far off at this point...

Pujols for MVP.

Bonds, not close.

:D

Pujols is the leader right now, but bonds is close, whether you want to believe it or not.

OPS's, Bonds: 1130, Pujols:1168. Homers: 20, 22

Albert has better runs/rbi's because he is surrounded by a better offense and barry is playing in a severe pitchers park esp tough on lefties.

And barry has his team in first place while the cards are scuffling in the Central.

It's a heck of a lot closer than you think if you ask me, and Bonds has been quiet for Bonds this year so far.

[rezdawg]

I used the big smiley face to show exaggeration. Obviously Bonds is putting up some solid numbers. But, Pujols is in the lead.