yeah he had a pretty lame movie/Tom Hanks reference, but besides that it was good.

That AL MVP column sucked because his logic devolved into this:

1) Jose Bautista's team sucks.
2) Dustin Pedroia and Jacoby Ellsbury's team is stacked.
3) Justin Verlander is an elite pitcher on a team leading a crappy division. MVP!

ill at least give him some credit for doing research

Not sure I buy Bill Barnwell's claim that Brandon Marshall and Cameron Wake are top-5 players at their position

I didn't read all of it but it seems that Simmons is saying that in 1931 they voted one way because they didn't know any better, and now that we know better, they should still vote like they're in 1931.

Cool story, Bill.

He's all over the place in that article. He's seemed to have adopted WAR as an indication of the value of seasons. But he doesn't care that Clemens' 1986 wasn't the best WAR season because, well, he doesn't really explain why.

Pedroia's and Ellsbury's stacked team counts against them. Yet he still would have voted for Johnny Bench over Steve Carlton in 1972, despite Bench's stacked team.

And why go back to 1931 and 1932 to determine what "valuable" means. The early voters were notorious for voting for the wrong players.

I enjoyed the article as it gave me some good info and I mostly agree with his interpretation of what an MVP award should mean; although this is really the first year I've followed baseball closely and I don't know anything about saber-metrics (don't care to, really).

The best part for me was in the 3rd to last paragraph where he makes the case for MJ being historically underrated. I was actually watching those games last night too (I'm a huge NBA nerd so I absolutely love this Playoff Gems series) and thinking the exact same thing; Jordan is shockingly underrated, even while being commonly accepted as the best player ever. While on the subject I'd say Pippen is pretty underrated also.

I'm not sure how well WAR translates between hitters and pitchers. But if you buy WAR, even Barry Bonds only had one season as good as Carlton's 1972. It was insane. Yet Simmons wouldn't have given him the MVP.

I'm pretty sick of the argument that a player from a losing team can't be the most valuable because "they would not make the playoffs with or without him," or whatever. If one guy has one $100 bill and another guy has four $50 bills, the $100 is still the most valuable.

Yeah but the $100 bill is like Tom Hanks from Turner and Hooch! Can't you see that?

I actually heard something somewhat cogent on this point the other day. Basically, a guy on a winning team has more "moments that matter" during the season, thus the amount of pressure faced forms the quality of diamond. However, you could say the ability to focus on a crappy team over 162 games (knowing the games don't matter and having no one else you can rely on) might be more impressive.

The Jays aren't even a losing team - they are 1 game above .500 and they are playing in the toughest division in baseball. They'd probably be contending in any other division (except maybe the NL East but would still be in it for the wildcard).

Agree
He explains why.

what's the difference between fangraph's WAR and BR's? fangraphs only has Teddy Higuera's WAR as 5.7 in '86, vs BR's 8.6. Both are pretty close on Clemens (7.9 vs 8.0).

Looking at the numbers, it seems crazy that Higuera had a higher WAR. Worse K/9, BB/9, H/9, HR/9, less IP. weird.

BR is more weighted towards offense

how would that impact two AL pitchers then?

baseball reference uses ERA (or maybe RA), fangraphs uses FIP with some leverage adjustment

baseball reference also doesn't have UZR to use for position players

I'm still mystified on this particular case. Only thing I can of is park factors, but could it really be that drastic?

Sal's voicemail message bit today was hilarious. Pretty much nailed every Simmon's trope in 30 seconds.

these Bill Barnwell columns are pretty good! so he's like 2-10 when it comes to hiring good writers. hey! 2-10! just like the 2011 Red Sox! and you all know what happened there.......

really enjoyed the oasis article by chuck. although by that i probably just mean i enjoyed reading what noel said.

Barnwell is solid. If you listen to the pod where they talked about hanging in Vegas to bet it was like Barnwell was 2+2 talking Bill off the ledge on everything. Bill naturally labeled him a wet blanket. Good times.

Yeah between him and Jonah Keri this site has some potential. I think of Grantland like a young Tom Brady, stepping in to fill the shoes of the champion Drew Bledsoe. Nobody believed in him. Nobody was willing to give the 9th round pick a chance. And we all know what happened then. Destiny. Greatness. Ron Burgundy awards.

Play the Grantland fantasy draft game! Gather 8 friends, throw in $20 (YOU MUST GAMBLE!) and draft an author! Then, for each column, assign them a point value:

Factual inaccuracy: 2 points each
Author contradicts themself: 5 points
Reference to a movie made in the 80's or 90's: 3 points
Attempt to relate a sports figure to such a movie: 10 points
Footnote over 5 lines long: 2 points
Reference to something's "secret greatness": 5 points

Ok, tally them up!! I took Simmons in the first! Over 2500 words on Simmons!