[nanwynnfan]

"nanwynnfan, why would you completely disregard MVP voting, as if it doesn't exist? It sounds like you're trying to make excuses why these players didn't do well in MVP voting."

Triad, I admire your forensic footwork: You conquer the opposition simply by planting the flag and pronouncing, "I've won. Slugging is better than non-sluggeing + defense. Next case."

1. I disregard MVP voting because it has, over the years, lost its credibility, with writers leaving contenders off ballots completely, or relegating them to 10th place votes when any baboon would know they deserved much higher placements. While generally, it goes to a deserving player, too often it gets tagged onto a favoriye, in a big market, on good terms with the press corps.

2. I have to admire as well your apparent dismissal of baseball being a team effort, with those big sluggers standing on Mount Olympus while the guys who got on were the ones who padded their RBI totals. To me, a guy with 200 hits in 610 AB [.328], 15 HR's, 80 walks and 50 K's ... and maybe 260 total bases is more valuable than his .270/.360/.555 teammates with 40 HR's and 150 K's because:

-he gets on more often, thus giving his team more OPPORTUNITIES to generate runs;

-his contact gets balls in play, where even OUTS can be productive, moving mates alomg or scoring them;

-a smart, heads-up, base stealer can turn single into doubles, as Max Carey did at an 89% success rate [for those seasons when records were kept]; and the Total Bases stat totally discounts the offensive contributions of these players;

-I have even less confidence in Gold Glove Awards than I do for MVP as a monitor of player peak: it's become an ole boys' club where default winners are often repeated, deserving or not, with the prime case being an award to rafeael Palmeiro as a 1B, when he was, in reality, a DH, who played only 27 games at first;

-YET I have the utmost respect for great glove men, who can save a team 20-40 defense runs, 2-4 game equivalents per season, which complements whatever contributions they make with the bat.

I make no excuses for players NOT faring well in MVP voting. Would an Earl Combs get huge press support on a team like the Murderers' Row Yankees? I doubt it; but that doesn't DISCOUNT Combs' contribution to the team effort.

Look, for example, to the Minnesota Twins during the hitting slump years of the 1060s. With some decent pitching + slugginh Harmon Killebrew, they stalled until 1965, when a fellow named Tony Oliva came along [.321/.378/.491], later joined in 1967 by a 21 year old named Rod Carew. In 1065, 1969 and 1970 the Twins won their division; but the MVP voting was dominated by Harmon Killebrew [who put up some good numbers]. The real cahrge was put into the Twins by the Oliva-Carew duo plus some strong pitching.

Back in the 1920's, it's interesting to look at the impact a second baseman with an eagle eye had on the A's franchise. In his rookie year, the A's were 71-81, in 5th place of an 8 team League. Then he became a full time player at 2B and the A's fortunes changed [2nd. 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st + WC, 1st + WC, 1st, lost WS, 2nd, 3rd]. Max Bishop ended up his career with the 1934-35 Bosox, and he has a CAREER OB% of .423. [Talk about INVISIBLE value].

Anyone not familiar with Max Bishop could look him up on Baseball-Reference - it's an eye-opener to underappreciated value.

Bishop shared the glory of his power teammates [who wouldn't have produced as much without him always being on base. Less fortunate was another on-base machine, Eddie Yost, whose teams never had the power and consistency to knock in the guy on base.