The narrative was decidedly changed due to him averaging a triple double. His team could have been .500, and the hype was still there (as it was when his team was below .500 earlier in the season). Lastly, your interleague vs east/West Point further strengthens the argument that voters did not really care as much about Westbrook's teams poor record. If anything, it pivoted the narrative to "he has no help!" (When his team was predicted to finish better than Houston at the start of the season).
Best player having the best season... sorry, didn't think that needed explanation. And of course, when the numbers are really close, some voters do factor in whether or not a player has done it night-in/night-out for a winning team. There's also some favoritism shown to teams or players that have a huge turnaround/breakout season.
You know its going good (or really really bad) when the discussion in here centers around the NBA MVP race.
The Dodgers look unbeatable. Their pitching is amazing. Not sure who's better but It would take our best effort.
They have basically the same record as us, despite us running a whole army of AAA starters and relievers out there for the last 6 weeks or so.
Mike Trout was the best player having the best season all 5 years. Look at Miguel Tejada winning MVP in a landslide over Alex Rodriguez in 2002. Baseball weighs team record. If they have favoritism as a whole, it is clearly for the smaller markets (and the turnaround/breakout you mentioned). ARod was fortunate to win the 2003 vote. If Toronto had made the playoffs, Delgado would have won. I find baseball voting to border on the absurd. So many questionable MVPs. Years where position apparently mattered a lot and ones where they didn't matter at all. Years where pitching was considered MVP-worthy, but other years where it was dismissed.
Got to agree with baseball voters being absurb whether it is for MVP, HoF, etc. Trout was clearly best player 4 out of the 5 years in the AL (i.e. not really close). Certain voters have certain prejudices (e.g. has to be in playoffs to get placed 1st on MVP ballot, played with a known steroid user) that cause for weird voting results in my opinion.
Do we know if he was asked? I quit watching the HR derby years ago. I didn't like the constantly changing rules. How I'd like the players selected? The top 5 in each league, plus somebody from the home team (home team should always have a rep, IMO). Not perfect, but the idea is let the players earn their invitations. I could also go for a change where one player from all 30 teams compete, but you'd have to do something to break it up (fewer outs and probably over 2 days). Fan vote would also be something I could get behind.
I don't. I believe in the HR derby jinx. Not because it's a jinx, but swings can be so finnicky. I totally see how thinking all HR all the time for 2 days can mess up your swing even if you try to go back. If you're in a great groove, I think it's smart to stay out of the derby
Astros run differential per game = 1.8202 Dodgers run differential per game = 1.8111 Advantage Astros.
Dodgers are benefitting from a starting staff that is over performing. The Astros have been walloping teams with a AAA rotation and an overused bull pen. One wonders what will happen when Keuchel comes back and the Astros grab another good starter.
Interesting rule adaptations. I don't ever watch, but for whatever reason, I am interested this year. I think I remember Kalas saying both Springer and Correa were asked, and both declined. @kaleidosky mentioned the swing jinx, which is why i'm sure they declined, but, selfishly I wish they were both in it.
Springer was asked and he turned it down saying he never was good in HR derby events citing his minor league experience in them. Basically he said he enjoys watching them but you won't see him in one anytime soon.
