Do you guys find it amazing that Glaus posted a .284/.404/.604 slash line in 2000 and yet, did not receive a single MVP vote?

[JustATroutFan]

Dude hit 47 homers that same year despite playing half his games in a very tough place to hit. I know that is was during the height of the "Steroids Era" where it felt like everybody was hitting 30+ homers or so but still, 47 home runs in a pitchers' park is still impressive and so was his .284/.404/.604 slash line. I know his defense wasn't good, so that could have been the reason why he didn't receive a single MVP vote.

[Oz27]

WAR wasn't really a thing then, at least outside the small SABR circle, but Glaus was fourth in the league in WAR that year. He was behind only A-Rod, Pedro and Erstad. He clearly should have got more MVP love, yeah. And Pedro really should have won it, he had one of the best seasons in history.

[Angelsjunky]

It was a different era. Yes, he had a great season, but consider that his 1.008 OPS wasn't even in the top 10 and he wasn't even the best player on the team that year - Darin Erstad was. That said, he should have gotten at least a vote. He had a 8.4 fWAR, good for 4th. And lots of lesser players got votes, and he was probably at least as deserving as the actual MVP, Jason Giambi. I would have given it to A-Rod or Erstad.

[Angelsjunky]

Pedro was, pound for pound and during his prime (1997-2003), the greatest pitcher in major league history, imo. His baseline during those seven years was Clayton Kershaw, while his very best years--1999 and 2000--were the best a pitcher has ever been. Or, at the least, unsurpassed. The only pitchers that I've seen that come close are Kershaw, Johnson, and Clemens.

[JustATroutFan]

3 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

WAR wasn't really a thing then, at least outside the small SABR circle, but Glaus was fourth in the league in WAR that year. He was behind only A-Rod, Pedro and Erstad. He clearly should have got more MVP love, yeah. And Pedro really should have won it, he had one of the best seasons in history.

Yeah, I have always thought that Pedro's 2000 season was the best individual season ever for a pitcher. Pitching in the toughest time for a pitcher and doing it at a hitters park like Fenway was impressive. His Adjusted ERA was 291, so he was about 191 points better than the league average for pitchers. Crazy.

[Angel Oracle]

Nice trade Dogs (Pedro for DeShields Sr.)!   Heh heh heh

That is right there with Brock/Broglio, Bagwell/Andersen, and Smoltz/Alexander.

[ten ocho recon scout]

7 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Pedro was, pound for pound and during his prime (1997-2003), the greatest pitcher in major league history, imo. His baseline during those seven years was Clayton Kershaw, while his very best years--1999 and 2000--were the best a pitcher has ever been. Or, at the least, unsurpassed. The only pitchers that I've seen that come close are Kershaw, Johnson, and Clemens.

Agreed. I hate pedro...but he was an absolute besst at his peak. Id even give him the nod over kershaw based on enviornment.

Kershaw is a unicorn, but pitching in fenway at the height of the roid years, with some of the super slugging teams the AL used to have i think is tougher than what Kershaw (mostly) deals with. Not to mention the east in itself is all big time hitters parks, vs the mostly big time pitcher parks in the NL west.

And i sort of like kershaw (for a dodger) and hate pedro.

[ukyah]

sports fans. where would they be without their hate?

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

Too much HGH/roids going around in those days! How could you decide who was the best(est) roider?......