Braun MVP

[bschr682]

unless i read that article wrong.... GO BRAUN!!!!

[mrbornac]

Congrats to Braun and the brewer faithful!

[recte44]

Awesome! Joins Robin Yount (twice) and Rollie Fingers as Brewers MVP's, and add in Henry Aaron from the Braves days.

Best quote today, from Brewers owner Mark Attanasio: "He will have a statue outside Miller Park someday."

[cheekimonk]

Well Corcoran didn't buy it...I kind of agree with him, TBH.

NL MVP voters got it wrong

[LambeauLeap]

I get it, but WHat does "Most Valuable" mean? Kemp had a great (awesome) year, but how valuable was he in terms of a team's success. They were 11.5 games out of first and were 3 games above .500. Now did he keep them from being an under .500 team? ABsolutely, not sure you could argue with that, but I'm not sure the Brewers make the playoffs without Braun in the order. Not only due to the stats he produced but the way teams had to pitch and adjust with him in the lineup.

[recte44]

Braun had more EBH's than Kemp and a higher SLG. It's a horse a piece, and in the end I'll take the guy from the better team.

[cheekimonk]

Yeah, I've never bought into the "more important to a better team" argument. I might buy it more in a sport like basketball where you could make the argument, depending on an analysis of the team, that a guy averaging 40 ppg on a cellar dweller might have actually hurt his team if he has hardly any assists - again, it depends. But I've always been a staunch believer in measuring players (and teams, for that matter) by what they did with what was put in front of them. I don't give a guy playing for the Royals a handicap before the season even starts opposed to someone playing for a contender. When it comes down to the last few in consideration for an individual award I will look at the individuals around each player - they could have helped him or been something to overcome (like a superstar with no one to protect him in the order) - but I'm still looking at that as "how did the player handle what was put in front of him." Taking the consideration all the way out to the team's success or failure is just to abstract - how do you separate the contribution of Braun from that of Morgan, Fielder, Axford, or Greinke? Even more to the point, the Brewers made the playoffs but how much better were they than expected because of Braun? The Dodgers won 82 games, but how much worse would they have been without Kemp's numbers? Going with the guy on the winning team sounds good, but I just don't think that's a valid distinction.

Now what would be great would be to research the origin of the MVP award...maybe overall and as it relates to baseball. Like the Supreme Court is charged with comparing cases against both the letter of the Constitution and the intent, how did voters and players originally view the MVP award? I will admit that the word "valuable" gives me pause. It does seem like a different intent than, say, "Man of the Match" in soccer.

[JimBob2232]

Uh-Oh....

[aaronweiner]

Oh gosh, I hope it's not true.

[blake]

I don't think it's true. These days they'd have to be really stupid to take banned substances.

[jiminyhopkins]

Huh.

Our drunk driving, Johnny Walker swigging first baseman doesn't seem so bad now, Eh?

Go Brewers!!!

[cheekimonk]

Oh gosh, I hope it's not true.

I don't think it's true. These days they'd have to be really stupid to take banned substances.

Woah, there...I don't think "not true" is one of the possible answers. It's got to be either "he took it to enhance performance" or "he took it for an unrelated condition/took something and didn't know a PED was present." The accuracy of these tests, especially with so much at stake, makes the "didn't do it" hardline pretty much impossible to defend.

What bothers me the most is that he knew - apparently - almost a month before the NL MVP award was announced. It may be under appeal, and so he can certainly cop to "just doing what the lawyers said," but c'mon, man.

[recte44]

I'm in denial. I want to believe there has to be something wrong here, and it's either NOT true, or some reduced element of true (most likely explanation, actually).

[LambeauLeap]

We'll see what happens, but if true (and most likely it is) he's dumber than a box of rocks. You don't put ANYTHING in your body when you don't know what is in it 100%, especially when you're in a sport or occupation where they check things.

Could it be a wierd situation, sure, and I really hope it is because I like him and like what he's done for this city.

[LambeauLeap]

When have we ever really seen someone not deny a positive test, but here's the latest from the local paper:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/135405518.html

It just seems to unlikely that he'd do it. Others you could see (Clemens, A-Rod, Manny, etc). Why ryan?

[cheekimonk]

When have we ever really seen someone not deny a positive test, but here's the latest from the local paper:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/135405518.html

It just seems to unlikely that he'd do it. Others you could see (Clemens, A-Rod, Manny, etc). Why ryan?

Even that article says "Not true" throughout until the last sentence when it mentions that if it was a stimulant and not steroid it's only a 25-game suspension. My point is that he tested positive for something, and that something was on MLB's list of prohibited substances. These tests just don't give false positives and the process is not one where they could "accidentally" find a positive result. The only thing "not true" can possibly mean is that MLB is lying...a dangerous accusation.

If it was a stimulant and not a steroid, that's still "true" in that he screwed up and will be suspended. It doesn't make it better, to me at least, that it's "only" 25 games and not the full 50. If he claims it was administered to him without his knowledge then, guess what, he still screwed up. If I'm a major league baseball player today nobody injects a damn thing into my body without me - and maybe even my lawyer - confirming what's in it.

Like you, Brad, I'm just jaded by the denials in these cases. What the hell are "suspicious circumstances" that his lawyers keeps cryptically mentioning? Piss gremlins? Did the nurse taking the sample have a "Cubs" tattoo? George W. Bush and the Illuminati?

[LambeauLeap]

LOL! I like those circumstances.

I am not a fanboy here at any stretch but I do lke Ryan. Actually was at the game the day after he signed his big extension and it was just a classy day. As a Brewer fan of long-ago I like what he's brought to the team so disappointment is waiting to come out if true.

[bschr682]

Im trying my best to reserve judgement here but if its true its going to be very hard for me to watch the Brewers with Braun on the team.

[Al-Hoot]

(Clemens, A-Rod, Manny, etc). Why ryan?

You can fill in the blank with all those names, including others, Pamiero, BBonds:

(name) was under such exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, probably without his knowledge, blah blah blah, I am sure he will be exonerated, blah blah blah DESPITE testing positive.

It's the same crap from Braun's attorney as from the others, it seems.

Although I agree that the jury seems to still be out as to what substances and what abuse and what cheating was going on....

And why Braun?

Can you say post-season? Or does the banned substances not work that fast?

[blake]

I also think it might be some sort of conspiracy against Selig maybe. Selig has ties to the Brewers and maybe theyre trying to undermine the Brewers to get revenge on him or someone. I dont know but it seems really fishy to me. The test came back with extremely abnormal amounts suggesting it might have been tainted.

Who knows what goes on. I dont want to sound like a conspiracy nut but I think it could be some sort of retribution from someone for something. It's a highly competitive atmosphere in MLB offices and who knows what goes on there. I'm sure there is a lot of infighting and feuds going on.