And The Award Should Have Gone To: 2000-2010

[The Brain]

For the most part the BBWA does a good job with their year end awards. Despite that there are times when we will disagree and think someone may have gotten the shaft on any given year. The idea in this thread is to take either the MVP, Cy Young, or Rookie of the Year from either league from 2000-2010 and give it to it’s rightful owner. If this thread gets some attention I’ll create one for the 90s later in the week.

I’ll start with the NL MVP from 2000. Jeff Kent won the award, and while there’s no denying he had a great season I feel there was a more deserving MVP. That would be Todd Helton. I think Kent got a lot of support because the Giants went to the playoffs that year and the Rockies did not. I don’t think getting to the postseason should have such an impact on the year end awards. I think it serves as a great tie breaker when there is more than one option. If it’s really a toss up between two players and one made it to the playoffs and the other did not I’d vote for the guy who made it. However, if someone had a truly great MVP season I think he should be recognized regardless if his team made it to the playoffs or not.

I feel that Todd Helton had such a great 2000 that he should have won the MVP. The real crime is not only did he not win the award, but he finished fifth in the voting. Fifth? How can this be? Check out these numbers. A .372 batting average, 42 home runs, 147 RBI, 216 hits, 59 doubles, 138 runs scored. First in batting average, RBI, hits, total bases, doubles, on base%, and slugging %. Second in runs scored.

Jeff Kent: Sixth in batting average. Fourth in RBI and hits. Seventh in total bases. Sixth in on base%. Tenth in slugging %. Eight in doubles and runs scored. Not to mention fewer home runs.

Todd Helton clearly had a better season than Jeff Kent in 2000. He was better in every category. I don’t care if the Giants made the playoffs and the Rockies didn’t. Helton should have won the MVP in 2000.

Now that I’ve gotten it started what awards from the past ten years do you disagree with?

EDIT: I want to open this up to any sport any year. No need for limitations here.

 

[Megatron]

I'm gonna go back 3 years ago to 2007, and, like you, I think that another Colorado Rockie got shafted. This time, though, it was Matt Holliday, who finished second in the voting to Jimmy Rollins. I know Jimmy was their leadoff guy so he wasn't gonna be putting up as high RBI totals as Holliday, but Matt had better totals in almost every statistical category, except for runs scored. Holliday had 36 HR's 137 RBI's and a .340 average, which was good for 2/3 of the triple crown. He had more hits then Jimmy, and a better average by over .040 percentage points. Holliday was clearly the better hitter and was just as important to his team as Rollins was to Philly.

And it's not even the case of who finished in the playoffs over who, because both teams made the playoffs and would've had identical records, only the Rockies had to play a 1 game playoff to get in. And, while the voting doesn't come after the playoffs, Holliday's Rockies swept the Phillies in 3 games and they were one of the hottest teams in the game. I know Holliday finished second, but each and every one of his numbers, except one, were much better then J-Rolls.

 

[Big Sexy]

I'll probably be in this thread numerous times but I'm going to start with the 1997 NFL MVP award.

Now this was one of only two seasons where the award was shared but I really think Barry Sanders deserved to win it outright. He ended up sharing it with Brett Favre who had won the award the two previous years. I'm a firm believer that only one player should be considered the MVP and awards should never be shared. This was the worst of Brett Favre's 3 MVP seasons. He still had a great year but he completed under 60% of his passes and his qb rating was 92.6. That is still very impressive but it just didn't measure up with the year that Barry had.

Barry became the third running back at the time to eclipse the 2,000 yard mark in a single season. He had 2,053 yards rushing, 14 total td's (11 rushing), and a ridiculous 6.1 yards per carry average. An average like that is almost unheard of. Barry almost single handedly led the Lions to a 9-7 record and a trip to the playoffs. Favre's Packers had the better record at 13-3 but they were also the much better team. I respect Favre as much as the next guy but no way should he have shared the MVP award with Barry in 1997. The award should have solely gone to Barry Sanders.

 

[TwistofRKO]

For the most part the BBWA does a good job with their year end awards. Despite that there are times when we will disagree and think someone may have gotten the shaft on any given year. The idea in this thread is to take either the MVP, Cy Young, or Rookie of the Year from either league from 2000-2010 and give it to it’s rightful owner. If this thread gets some attention I’ll create one for the 90s later in the week.

I’ll start with the NL MVP from 2000. Jeff Kent won the award, and while there’s no denying he had a great season I feel there was a more deserving MVP. That would be Todd Helton. I think Kent got a lot of support because the Giants went to the playoffs that year and the Rockies did not. I don’t think getting to the postseason should have such an impact on the year end awards. I think it serves as a great tie breaker when there is more than one option. If it’s really a toss up between two players and one made it to the playoffs and the other did not I’d vote for the guy who made it. However, if someone had a truly great MVP season I think he should be recognized regardless if his team made it to the playoffs or not.

I feel that Todd Helton had such a great 2000 that he should have won the MVP. The real crime is not only did he not win the award, but he finished fifth in the voting. Fifth? How can this be? Check out these numbers. A .372 batting average, 42 home runs, 147 RBI, 216 hits, 59 doubles, 138 runs scored. First in batting average, RBI, hits, total bases, doubles, on base%, and slugging %. Second in runs scored.

Jeff Kent: Sixth in batting average. Fourth in RBI and hits. Seventh in total bases. Sixth in on base%. Tenth in slugging %. Eight in doubles and runs scored. Not to mention fewer home runs.

Todd Helton clearly had a better season than Jeff Kent in 2000. He was better in every category. I don’t care if the Giants made the playoffs and the Rockies didn’t. Helton should have won the MVP in 2000.

Now that I’ve gotten it started what awards from the past ten years do you disagree with?

I wouldn't frown at history had Helton won the award, but I can see why he didn't. You fail to mention he also played in the launching pad that is Coors Field, and Jeff Kent also protected Barry Bonds in the Giants line-up. That's where valuable comes in, and without Kent, the Giants wouldn't have been the best team in the NL. He also stood out at a position where many guys don't, Second Base, whereas Helton is a First Baseman, who not only had the shadow of recent success Mark McGwire had cast, but a slew a elite first basemen like Jason Giambi, Carlos Delgado, and Frank Thomas, who all led better teams.

My pick is Manny Ramirez in 1999. The award went to a capable Ivan Rodriguez, but paled when compared to Manny's campaign. The Indians had the best offense in baseball, fueled by Manny's 165 RBI, and relied upon that offense with one of the worst pitching staffs in recent memory. The main reason Manny didn't come away with the award was because he split votes with teammate Roberto Alomar (who should be in the Hall of Fame, but I digress). Pudge may not have even been the best hitter on the team, whereas the Indians offense went through Manny.

 

[gd]

We'll go 1997 NBA MVP here, which went ot Karl Malone of the Jazz. He put up pretty good numbers, 27-10-5 for a 64 win Jazz team, albeit in a somewhat diluted Western Conference.

The real winner, of course, should've been Michael Jorand. He went for 30-6-4 on a 69 win Bulls team and to all who were there at the time, which unquestionably the best player in the league. Hell, the previous year, he was nearly the unanimous choice with 30-7-4 and 72 wins, bascially the same numbers. How does he go from unanimous choice to second place after having basically the same season? Makes no sense.

 

[LSN80]

The 2009 comeback player of the year award. Tom Brady won the award pretty handily, with 19 votes. While I don't doubt that Brady was a viable candidate, he shouldn't have won. The award should have gone to Vince Young.

Tennesee started the year 0-8, including a 61-0 shillacking at the hands of the New England Patriots that lead to them being 0-6, and rumors that the longest tenured coach in the NFL, Jeff Fisher, would be fired after the season. Following the New England game, Fisher names Young the starter, and he goes 8-2 down the stretch, revitalizing the titans and likely saving Fisher's job.

I know Chris Johnson was a beast, but he was the best running back all 16 games, including the first 8, which they lost. Tom brady was throwing to Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Julian Edelman, among others. Tennessee's top receiver was the former #3 wr in Pittsburgh, Nate Washington. His other top receivers were Justin Gage, a massive disapointment, and rookie Kenny Britt. Is there even an argument about the disparity in talent level surrounding both QB's?

Young showed leadership and poise. If tennessee had done anything the first 8 games of the season, they would have made the playoffs. Everyone knew how good Brady was, and that he could come back with the level of skill surrounding him. Young was much more of a surprise. Here's a guy who sufferred from such terrible anxiety he wouldn't do post-game interviews without his helmet off. His mom called the police frantic in 07 after he locked himself in his house with a gun, threatening to commit suicide. The guy obviously battled his demons, faced them, and became a darn good QB on an awful team along the way. To me, thats the definition of a comeback player, not a guy who goes right back to the same cushy position he was in before.