BBWAA vs. The Academy: This time it's personal

This latest FJM post has inspired me to take a look at the past decade and see who did a worse job: the BBWAA at voting for MVP, or the Academy at voting for Best Picture? Enjoy.


2000

AL MVP: Jason Giambi
NL MVP: Jeff Kent
Best Picture: Gladiator

All steroid crap aside, Giambi had an insane OBP (.476) and has second-place finisher Frank Thomas beat in almost every category. You could've made a solid argument for A-Rod, who had a similar OPS+ to Thomas (162 vs. 163) and still played SS at the time.
Barry Bonds probably should've won in the NL. He had the better OBP (.440 vs. .424 for Kent) the better OPS+ (188 vs. 162), and leads Kent in most of the major counting stats. On the other hand, Kent played a more demanding position (2B vs. LF). Then there's Mike Piazza, who put up similar numbers to Kent while playing C. We'll call it a draw.

"Gladiator" was exactly the type of testosterone-fueled pointlessness that made me loathe 300. "Traffic" was the better and smarter film, and thus should've won here. Hell, I'd vote for "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" over "Gladiator".

Who did worse: The Academy



2001

AL MVP: Ichiro Suzuki
NL MVP: Barry Bonds
Best Picture: A Beautiful Mind


It's hard for me to be objective about Ichiro, so I won't bother with this. Sure, Giambi led him in nearly every category possible (except SB and BA), but did the A's win 116 games that year, and does Giambi have a cool batting stance? Didn't think so. As for Bonds, I suppose when you hit 73 homers and put up a 1.378 OPS, you're going to get nearly unanimous support for MVP. No real argument there.

2001 was a really weak year for the Oscars. "A Beautiful Mind" wasn't that great (did Akiva Goldsman really win an Oscar for this?), but who else to vote for? "Lord of the Rings"? "Gosford Park"? "Moulin Rouge"? I forgot "In The Bedroom" even existed until I saw the nomination list.

Who did worse: The Academy, I guess.


2002

AL MVP: Miguel Tejada
NL MVP: Barry Bonds
Best Picture: Chicago

I'm calling bullshit on Tejada's win here. A-Rod had more home runs (57 vs. 34), a higher OPS (1.015 vs. .862), a much higher OBP (.392 vs. .354), a better OPS+ (158 vs. 128) and was way, way better at SS. Bull. Shit. I don't have an argument against Bonds, as usual.

The win for "Chicago" wasn't all too surprising, considering the Academy's hard-on for musicals. But how cool would've it been to see "Spirited Away" get a nod here, and possibly win? One can dream...

Who did worse: the BBWAA



2003

AL MVP: Alex Rodriguez
NL MVP: Barry Bonds
Best Picture: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

Close call on the AL race. Carlos Delgado has a small advantage in most of the stats, and Jorge Posada gets bonus points for playing C. But A-Rod still has the edge here, if only for one reason: he played amazing SS, while Delgado was a statue at 1B. As for the NL, yawn.

Some people would say LOTR is overrated, that it is style-over-substance, ham fisted, over-the-top tripe whose sole reason for existence is to stroke the ego of Peter Jackson. Those people are communists. Fuck them. In the ass. With an authentic Elvish sword I got off Ebay and hung on my wall.

Who did worse: Push



2004

AL MVP: Vladimir Guerrero
NL MVP: Barry Bonds
Best Picture: Million Dollar Baby

Not much to bitch about here, as both winners pretty clearly had better seasons than their competition.

"Million Dollar Baby" was a fine movie, if a bit melodramatic. That can be attributed to Paul Haggis' script--more on him later. Since Hillary Swank is from Bellingham, I feel compelled to support her; however, she has been trying my patience lately.

Who did worse: Push



2005

AL MVP: Alex Rodriguez
NL MVP: Albert Pujols
Best Picture: Crash

I'm just going to ignore the MVP winners this time. This entire paragraph will be devoted to exorcising my Paul Haggis demon once and for all.

Paul Haggis, if you're reading this: fuck you. You're rich, middle-aged and white; what the fuck do you know about racism, or inner-city urban life? Your obsession with cutting and pasting Hallmark quotes into your screenplays have dragged down otherwise good movies like "Casino Royale" and "Million Dollar Baby". And now we have "Crash", which not only robbed Brokeback Mountain of a much-deserved award, but it had all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the crotch. We get it! Racism is bad! Now stop bludgeoning us over the head and get off your fucking pulpit. You fucking douchetit.

Who did worse: The Academy, by a mile.



2006

AL MVP: Justin Morneau
NL MVP: Ryan Howard
Best Picture: The Departed

In a way, I'm kinda glad Jeter didn't win, because then it would give ESPN yet another reason to slob his knob. But there's really no way around this: Jeter had the better year, and should've won. A 132 OPS+ is pretty damn good for a shortstop, and he has Morneau beat by a mile in OBP (.417 vs. .375). Howard's 57 homers look pretty on the stat sheet, but consider this: Albert Pujols hit 49, while playing in 16 less games than Howard. He also had the better OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, and played a much better glove at 1B than Howard.

"The Departed" was a great film, and deserved its win. However, I'm still pissed that "Little Miss Sunshine" robbed "Children of Men" of a nomination.

Who did worse: the BBWAA



Final Analysis

We can see here that the Academy has done a slightly worse job at picking the best movie of the year than the BBWAA. This wasn't an exhaustive research, of course: the '00s are a small sample size, and was mostly a decade dominated by Barry Bonds and A-Rod, so it's hard to argue those choices. 2007, of course, was a different story with Jimmy Rollins, and I won't rehash what others have said elsewhere. This year's Oscar race should be a tossup between "No Country For Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood". However, if "Atonement" wins, I'm leaving Hollywood. In flames.

Guest Post by Butter Harrison

Recently, I stumbled into a relationship with a woman who is a football fan. You can imagine how this would be troubling to me. I know nothing about football. In fact, I have it on good authority that even some of the name contributors to this blog know very little about the ins and outs of the sport. How can I compete in a market like that?
Apparently, the Super Bowl is coming up. This is a big deal in football—it is sort of the football equivalent of the World Cup. It is a bigger deal for my girlfriend, S., who is a big Colts fan. I mean huge. Her facebook religious affiliation refers to Peyton Manning. She wears a Colts jersey in Boston (she is not popular). I have gotten weeping phone calls from her when the Colts lose. She gets bedroom eyes when they win.
So the fact that they are competing in the Super Bowl is a huge deal. She explained that a victory for the Colts will mean fifteen minutes of sex (about thirteen more than I can handle), and a defeat will mean four hours of tears, so I should be prepared for either event (I have a tissue box next to my bed).
When she mentioned it, I realized that I, too, have an important event coming up. Please don’t mock me. I am a huge fan of the Academy Awards. Please stop mocking me.
Like any football fan, I often feel that the wrong people win. I often throw food at my TV, and I will admit that when I saw certain nominations I was so depressed I didn’t go to class all day.
The problem, though, is that the Academy Awards are not really analogous to the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl is one event, one long, endless event, while there are so many chances for good and bad victories during the Academy Awards. It’s a little bit more like the World Series. Best Picture is Game Seven.
Then again, my favorite team (Children of Men) is playing in Game Three (Best Adapted Screenplay) but for Game Seven, it feels like only the Red Sox and the Indians are playing—I vary between being angry and being indifferent.
There is a feeling going around among fans of the Academy Awards that the Oscar tends to be awarded retroactively to whomever deserved the Oscar last year. Nobody thinks that Return of the King was the Best Picture; people were mostly impressed by Peter Jackson’s work so far. If The Departed wins this year, we’ll know why.
In that sense, the Academy Awards process is less like the actual gaming of a sport and closer to the draft process. When a great team (Children of Men, directed by Alfonso Cuarón) does poorly despite its obvious greatness, it means when the team drafts new players they get first pick. Right after Lost in Translation’s Bill Murray lost Best Actor to Sean Penn (has any man ever better embodied the New York Yankees?), Murray, a free agent, had his pick of teams. He ultimately did a season with Jim Jarmusch and then opened a car dealership.
Despite these obvious flaws in the system, I swear to God I will cry for four hours if Borat wins any awards.