|
|
Post by aztecterrier on Jun 23, 2024 5:29:20 GMT -8
Faulk lost the Heisman to a 7th round draft pick. He still finished 2nd... not 7th IN THE NATIONAL LEAGUE. I'm not sure, "MVP voters underappreciated TG's accomplishment during the steroid era, so hitting .394 isn't a big deal" is a winning argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jun 23, 2024 12:30:11 GMT -8
He still finished 2nd... not 7th IN THE NATIONAL LEAGUE. I'm not sure, "MVP voters underappreciated TG's accomplishment during the steroid era, so hitting .394 isn't a big deal" is a winning argument. I love Tony and he was a HOFer… But 1994 wasn’t even his best season, 1987 was and he finished 4th in WAR that year… in any single season he was never the most valuable player… sorry Marshall wins this one easy |
|
|
|
Post by aronoff on Jun 23, 2024 19:54:35 GMT -8
Pro season by an Aztec - Faulk has it - no if's ....
In golf - Both Littler and Xander are outstanding -
Xander should take a nod to what DeChambeau did when BD honored Payne Stewart at the Open
we are lucky we now have produced two elite golfers - each should be celebrated in their own right.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Jun 23, 2024 20:16:02 GMT -8
Its interesting, Faulk won the Super Bowl in a different season from his MVP year. The 1999 Rams won the Super Bowl, but since the NFL playoffs wrap around the calendar year the Super Bowl was won in January 2000. That being written, Kurt Warner won the MVP in that season. Faulk won the MVP in the 2000 season, but the Super Bowl that year was won by the Ravens. However, Faulk's numbers were pretty close in 1999 (his non MVP year) to 2000 (his MVP year). That being written, I believe the post reads season, not year, so Faulk doesn't get MVP & Super Bowl combined.
Gwynn's .394 is certainly impressive, and I am a huge Gwynn fan, but batting average isn't the best measure of a ball player's worth, pointing it out as an accomplishment that had not been achieved for a long time is as much a testament to how the game has changed over the years. Its like rating Curtis Granderson's 2007 season really high because he's the only player to have hit 23 triples in a season since integration. Gwynn's '94 can really be seen as great by his .394/.454/.568 slash line. He had an ops+ of 169, best in his career.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Jun 23, 2024 20:20:13 GMT -8
Its interesting, Faulk won the Super Bowl in a different season from his MVP year. The 1999 Rams won the Super Bowl, but since the NFL playoffs wrap around the calendar year the Super Bowl was won in January 2000. That being written, Kurt Warner won the MVP in that season. Faulk won the MVP in the 2000 season, but the Super Bowl that year was won by the Ravens. However, Faulk's numbers were pretty close in 1999 (his non MVP year) to 2000 (his MVP year). That being written, I believe the post reads season, not year, so Faulk doesn't get MVP & Super Bowl combined. Gwynn's .394 is certainly impressive, and I am a huge Gwynn fan, but batting average isn't the best measure of a ball player's worth, pointing it out as an accomplishment that had not been achieved for a long time is as much a testament to how the game has changed over the years. Its like rating Curtis Granderson's 2007 season really high because he's the only player to have hit 23 triples in a season since integration. Gwynn's '94 can really be seen as great by his .394/.454/.568 slash line. He had an ops+ of 169, best in his career. Actually, Faulk was MVP in 2000 and a Super Bowl Champion in the same year. Faulk with the hands down best season by an Aztec. He could catch the football, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Jun 23, 2024 20:28:51 GMT -8
Its interesting, Faulk won the Super Bowl in a different season from his MVP year. The 1999 Rams won the Super Bowl, but since the NFL playoffs wrap around the calendar year the Super Bowl was won in January 2000. That being written, Kurt Warner won the MVP in that season. Faulk won the MVP in the 2000 season, but the Super Bowl that year was won by the Ravens. However, Faulk's numbers were pretty close in 1999 (his non MVP year) to 2000 (his MVP year). That being written, I believe the post reads season, not year, so Faulk doesn't get MVP & Super Bowl combined. Gwynn's .394 is certainly impressive, and I am a huge Gwynn fan, but batting average isn't the best measure of a ball player's worth, pointing it out as an accomplishment that had not been achieved for a long time is as much a testament to how the game has changed over the years. Its like rating Curtis Granderson's 2007 season really high because he's the only player to have hit 23 triples in a season since integration. Gwynn's '94 can really be seen as great by his .394/.454/.568 slash line. He had an ops+ of 169, best in his career. Actually, Faulk was MVP in 2000 and a Super Bowl Champion in the same year. Faulk with the hands down best season by an Aztec. He could catch the football, as well. Once again, it was the same calendar year, not the same season. Thats what I wrote. Warner won the MVP in the Super Bowl season. |
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jun 24, 2024 10:21:56 GMT -8
Its interesting, Faulk won the Super Bowl in a different season from his MVP year. The 1999 Rams won the Super Bowl, but since the NFL playoffs wrap around the calendar year the Super Bowl was won in January 2000. That being written, Kurt Warner won the MVP in that season. Faulk won the MVP in the 2000 season, but the Super Bowl that year was won by the Ravens. However, Faulk's numbers were pretty close in 1999 (his non MVP year) to 2000 (his MVP year). That being written, I believe the post reads season, not year, so Faulk doesn't get MVP & Super Bowl combined. Gwynn's .394 is certainly impressive, and I am a huge Gwynn fan, but batting average isn't the best measure of a ball player's worth, pointing it out as an accomplishment that had not been achieved for a long time is as much a testament to how the game has changed over the years. Its like rating Curtis Granderson's 2007 season really high because he's the only player to have hit 23 triples in a season since integration. Gwynn's '94 can really be seen as great by his .394/.454/.568 slash line. He had an ops+ of 169, best in his career. Well written… his 1994 season, even with the OPS+ of 169 was only his 5th best WAR season because he had stared his fielding decline. |
|
|
|
Post by DeeMoney on Jun 24, 2024 10:56:43 GMT -8
Its interesting, Faulk won the Super Bowl in a different season from his MVP year. The 1999 Rams won the Super Bowl, but since the NFL playoffs wrap around the calendar year the Super Bowl was won in January 2000. That being written, Kurt Warner won the MVP in that season. Faulk won the MVP in the 2000 season, but the Super Bowl that year was won by the Ravens. However, Faulk's numbers were pretty close in 1999 (his non MVP year) to 2000 (his MVP year). That being written, I believe the post reads season, not year, so Faulk doesn't get MVP & Super Bowl combined. Gwynn's .394 is certainly impressive, and I am a huge Gwynn fan, but batting average isn't the best measure of a ball player's worth, pointing it out as an accomplishment that had not been achieved for a long time is as much a testament to how the game has changed over the years. Its like rating Curtis Granderson's 2007 season really high because he's the only player to have hit 23 triples in a season since integration. Gwynn's '94 can really be seen as great by his .394/.454/.568 slash line. He had an ops+ of 169, best in his career. Well written… his 1994 season, even with the OPS+ of 169 was only his 5th best WAR season because he had stared his fielding decline. Yeah his fielding began to chip away at his value by the 90s. Though if there were no strike that year, he was on pace to end up with a 5.8 WAR (baseball-reference measurements), which would have been a bit higher. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jun 24, 2024 16:44:50 GMT -8
Its interesting, Faulk won the Super Bowl in a different season from his MVP year. The 1999 Rams won the Super Bowl, but since the NFL playoffs wrap around the calendar year the Super Bowl was won in January 2000. That being written, Kurt Warner won the MVP in that season. Faulk won the MVP in the 2000 season, but the Super Bowl that year was won by the Ravens. However, Faulk's numbers were pretty close in 1999 (his non MVP year) to 2000 (his MVP year). That being written, I believe the post reads season, not year, so Faulk doesn't get MVP & Super Bowl combined. Gwynn's .394 is certainly impressive, and I am a huge Gwynn fan, but batting average isn't the best measure of a ball player's worth, pointing it out as an accomplishment that had not been achieved for a long time is as much a testament to how the game has changed over the years. Its like rating Curtis Granderson's 2007 season really high because he's the only player to have hit 23 triples in a season since integration. Gwynn's '94 can really be seen as great by his .394/.454/.568 slash line. He had an ops+ of 169, best in his career. Well written… his 1994 season, even with the OPS+ of 169 was only his 5th best WAR season because he had stared his fielding decline. If you go back two decades to get out of the steroid era, Gwynn's 169 OPS+ would be #1 in 1974, just barely better then Willie Stargell's 168 OPS+. If you look at 2023, Gwynn would be 4'th in OPS+ behind Ohtani (184), Seager (174), and Acuna (169). A 169 OPS+ is really, really, good. |
|
