And Fielder got 3rd place. Hooray for the team I root for when my teams miss the playoffs by 30 games.

If only there was an appropriate to toast in honor of this achievement...

/Go Brew Crew!

I'm just glad that the guy who doesn't hit and only plays every 5 days was the AL MVP.

+1 for subby

Congrats to Braun, the Brewers and the city of Milwaukee.

Milwaukee Rocks eh!

Lorelle: Kemp was robbed.

How? The award is Most Valuable Player, not Most Impressive Statistics. I'm not about to jump on board with Pujols when he said that only players that made the postseason should win the MVP a few years back, but I don't see how a player for a team that lost their division by 11.5 games is the MOST valuable player in the league. The Brewers wouldn't have made the playoffs without Braun who was consistently amazing throughout the season.

Lorelle: Kemp was robbed.

No, not really. Kemp won the Hank Aaron award, as he rightfully should. Dude raked this year. Unfortunately, his raking (and Kershaw's pitching) did not equate to winning consistently enough to take their team to the next level (a.k.a. playoffs). Braun and Fielder were probably the most imposing 3-4 combo I have seen in a while, which they had to be given the vortex of suck they put behind Fielder for most of the year (I think it was McGehee) if Milwaukee wanted to win enough to get to the playoffs. Take one away and you have the other as a non-threat who would probably get walked with Bonds-like rates. Braun had the better year than Fielder, he deserves the MVP.

\still want him to get his ring
\\just not too much at the Cards expense

NutznGum: I'm just glad that the guy who doesn't hit and only plays every 5 days was the AL MVP.

Me too....

/relieved.
//not really, more like bitter.
///just like Bautista's comments.

supersockman: The award is Most Valuable Player, not Most Impressive Statistics.

Sentences like this make my FJM-sense tingle.

SnatchMcGillicudy: Lorelle: Kemp was robbed.

No, not really. Kemp won the Hank Aaron award, as he rightfully should

As I said in the Verlander thread, it should've been the other way around. Braun had the better wOBA, more RAA, etc, though the two are very close (Kemp had a higher OPS+, for instance). I have no problem calling Braun the better hitter (meaning he should've won the Hank Aaron), but Kemp played a tougher defensive position and they were about equal defensively, so Kemp was more valuable.

Though if someone wants Kemp for both, I won't complain. But the only argument for Braun over Kemp for MVP is !PLAYOFFS! and that's just stupid.

As Branch Rickey once said after Ralph Kiner asked for a raise: "We finished last with you, we can finish last without you."

WOOOOOOOHOOOOOO!!!!

So happy :D

DeWayne Mann: SnatchMcGillicudy: Lorelle: Kemp was robbed.

No, not really. Kemp won the Hank Aaron award, as he rightfully should

As I said in the Verlander thread, it should've been the other way around. Braun had the better wOBA, more RAA, etc, though the two are very close (Kemp had a higher OPS+, for instance). I have no problem calling Braun the better hitter (meaning he should've won the Hank Aaron), but Kemp played a tougher defensive position and they were about equal defensively, so Kemp was more valuable.

Though if someone wants Kemp for both, I won't complain. But the only argument for Braun over Kemp for MVP is !PLAYOFFS! and that's just stupid.

This.

The only people that think Braun deserved it over Kemp are either ignorant or Brewers fans, though I couldn't tell you the difference between the two.

DeWayne Mann: Though if someone wants Kemp for both, I won't complain. But the only argument for Braun over Kemp for MVP is !PLAYOFFS! and that's just stupid.

Playoffs is fine for the MVP, but when it comes to the golden glove, a lot of players get over looked because they play on loosing teams. I'm a bit surprised that some Orioles one Golden Glove this year, but I guess their high profile games (Yankees and Red Sox) were enough that the sports writers got a chance to look at them defensively.

One one hand, Matt Kemp had no protection and Ryan Braun did. On the other hand Matt Kemp had 159 strikeouts and Ryan Braun had 93.

I live in LA but I'm not a huge Dodgers fan and I have no problem with the award given to Braun. They both had great years and it could have gone either way. A lot of voters do value playoffs appearance just like a lot of voters would not consider a pitcher for MVP award.

Either way, I'm hoping Kemp gets some protection in the line up next year and builds on this season and doesn't take a step back.

Any day where Milwaukee makes the news for something other than some fark squishing their child, millions of gallons of shiat getting dumped into the lake or some people eating zombie farker gets busted is a good day.

GO CREW!

WHAR JUSTIN
UPTON!?
WHAR?!
\ o /
( )
/ \

/I know, 4th place
//didn't expect him to get it either

AdolfOliverPanties: Should have been Matt Kemp.

Lorelle: Kemp was robbed.

So should it be about numbers or about an important player on a team that actually succeeded? I'm sure the Dodgers could have finished out of the playoffs without Kemp, which is exactly where they finished with Kemp.

I'm glad the voters went away from giving it to the guy with the best offensive year and actually tried to understand that "best stats" don't mean "MVP".

Though, I did think Kemp would get it based on his numbers becuase the MVP is often given out for numbers not necessarily because a guy was the MVP.

Meanwhile Kershaw finishes 12th while winning the pitching triple crown and having practically the same season as Verlander.

srhp29: So should it be about numbers or about an important player on a team that actually succeeded?

A player doesn't cease to have value simply because his teammates suck. It takes a pretty twisted definition of value to make that not true (in which case, I'm gonna go with the tarsier).

srhp29: I'm glad the voters went away from giving it to the guy with the best offensive year and actually tried to understand that "best stats" don't mean "MVP".

Uh, again, arguably Braun DID have the best offensive year. The issue is that he did it as a LF while Kemp had a pretty comparable one as a CF.

srhp29: I'm sure the Dodgers could have finished out of the playoffs without Kemp, which is exactly where they finished with Kemp.

I find it interesting that you rarely see the reverse side of this argument. Did Josh Hamilton deserve the MVP last year? The Rangers won the division by 9 games, and neither b-r nor fangraphs has Hamilton as being ≥ 9 WAR. Seems like they could've gotten in first place without him

(And, finally, i posted this in the verlander thread because it's explicitly about him, but it works here too:

http://nationalsreview.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/verlanders-perceived -v alue/)

The Drawing Board: Meanwhile Kershaw finishes 12th while winning the pitching triple crown and having practically the same season as Verlander.

And behind Halladay, who (obviously) finished behind Kershaw in the voting.

(I could bring up the tarsier article again here...just click on that link, then read the one comment).

Chupacabra Sandwich: neuroflare: WHAR JUSTIN
UPTON!?
WHAR?!
\ o /
( )
/ \

/I know, 4th place
//didn't expect him to get it either

Whoever voted for Justin #1 is an idiot. Love Justin, but not the MVP.

Probably one of the BBWAA guys from around here. Dude watched a lot of D-Backs and thought J-Up starting to really grow into his potential. I think he has a good shot at it over the next few years, but I can at least justify to myself why he got one.

The Drawing Board: Meanwhile Kershaw finishes 12th while winning the pitching triple crown and having practically the same season as Verlander.

Just goes to show you how much more talented the NL is with a bat and glove.

srhp29: So should it be about numbers or about an important player on a team that actually succeeded? I'm sure the Dodgers could have finished out of the playoffs without Kemp, which is exactly where they finished with Kemp.

So do you really think the award should only be given to a player whose team made the postseason?

The 2011 Dodgers consisted of Kemp and Kershaw along with a few above average players (Ethier, Kuroda, and a few relievers) followed up with a whole lot of mediocrity. Teams who rely on guys like Carrol, Miles, and Gwynn Jr to do anything more than serve as the 25th man typically finish in the cellar. The Dodgers somehow finished three games over .500. They obviously weren't the '27 Yankees but Kemp and Kershaw kept them from being the '92 Dodgers.

Good job, Braun. Good jon Kemp. Regardless, we'll take 2LO all day long!

/2LO!

Wake me when those stat nerds come up with a stat for clutch hitting down the stretch in a pennant race.

That's valuable.

DrBear: Wake me when those stat nerds come up with a stat for clutch hitting down the stretch in a pennant race.

That's valuable.

Happened a long time ago. Turns out clutch hitting is essentially random, with good hitters being more likely to hit well in the clutch than bad hitters. There's no evidence that two hitters with an otherwise equal talent level will have a different level of clutchiness. What you perceive as "clutch" (or the opposite, "choke") tends to be the result of a small sample size. Basically anything can happen in a month's time.

So, in other words, in your world, "value" tends to rely more on the roll of a die than actual player talent.

And you call us nerds.

No, in my world value relies on what happens in a real game with real players. Just because it has a "small sample size" doesn't mean that one player isn't better than another when a big hit is needed.

DrBear: No, in my world value relies on what happens in a real game with real players. Just because it has a "small sample size" doesn't mean that one player isn't better than another when a big hit is needed.

Except that is, essentially, what it means.

Here, read this:

The Concept of ''Clutch''

Maybe you should drive: So do you really think the award should only be given to a player whose team made the postseason?

I do. I really do. When I was like 12 or 13 and Dawson won it for a last place Cubs team, I thought it was asinine then too.

They didn't have a Hank Aaron Award back then, but they do now....so give the MVP more meaning that statistics.

srhp29: They didn't have a Hank Aaron Award back then, but they do now....so give the MVP more meaning that statistics.

Funny, to me, your method of determining MVP has far less meaning than using statistics.

srhp29: Maybe you should drive: So do you really think the award should only be given to a player whose team made the postseason?

I do. I really do. When I was like 12 or 13 and Dawson won it for a last place Cubs team, I thought it was asinine then too.

They didn't have a Hank Aaron Award back then, but they do now....so give the MVP more meaning that statistics.

Actually, not necessarily make the playoffs. It wasn't that long ago that only four teams made it total. Now there are 8. I say as long as your team is in the race for a spot, then sure. If Ellsbury had won it, I would not have had any issue with that, and I really did think Kemp would win this.

srhp29: Maybe you should drive: So do you really think the award should only be given to a player whose team made the postseason?

I do. I really do

Fair enough. I guess the beauty of the MVP is that there really is no definition. It makes it a more interesting argument.

If I were a voter I would simply try to determine the player who I felt added the most to his team (thus making him the most valuable). Using that criteria alone, I really don't think there was a single player in the National League who meant more to his team than Kemp.

Having said that, I'm not necessarily arguing that Braun isn't worthy himself. I only think that limiting this award to players whose teams made the postseason is, well, a little silly. Corey Patterson played for a team that made the postseason this year. By your criteria he is more worthy of the award than Matt Kemp.

Congratulations!!!!

srhp29: srhp29: Maybe you should drive: So do you really think the award should only be given to a player whose team made the postseason?

I do. I really do. When I was like 12 or 13 and Dawson won it for a last place Cubs team, I thought it was asinine then too.

They didn't have a Hank Aaron Award back then, but they do now....so give the MVP more meaning that statistics.

Actually, not necessarily make the playoffs. It wasn't that long ago that only four teams made it total. Now there are 8. I say as long as your team is in the race for a spot, then sure. If Ellsbury had won it, I would not have had any issue with that, and I really did think Kemp would win this.

See, that'd make some sense. But if your team just barely comes up short (Ellsbury this year, David Wright in '07), your team is too stained by choke and failure to possibly get an MVP.

If Ellsbury were on the Angels (pulled that out of a hat) he'd have a better chance than with the one-game-out Sox.

ddam: One one hand, Matt Kemp had no protection and Ryan Braun did. On the other hand Matt Kemp had 159 strikeouts and Ryan Braun had 93.

I live in LA but I'm not a huge Dodgers fan and I have no problem with the award given to Braun. They both had great years and it could have gone either way. A lot of voters do value playoffs appearance just like a lot of voters would not consider a pitcher for MVP award.

Either way, I'm hoping Kemp gets some protection in the line up next year and builds on this season and doesn't take a step back.

Check out Kemp's BABIP for 2011.

He was good this year, but he was not as good as he looked. He will regress.

/Traded him from my fantasy keeper team for Pujols
//and Hanley Ramirez